NORWAY - European Food Safety Authority...Norway - 2010 Report on trends and sources of zoonoses 2.8.2 Trichinellosis in humans 131 2.8.3 Trichinella in animals 132 2.9 ECHINOCOCCOSIS

NORWAY

The Report referred to in Article 9 of Directive 2003/99/EC

TRENDS AND SOURCES OF ZOONOSES ANDZOONOTIC AGENTSIN HUMANS, FOODSTUFFS, ANIMALS ANDFEEDINGSTUFFS

including information on foodborne outbreaks,antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic agents and somepathogenic microbiological agents.

IN 2010

Norway - 2010 Report on trends and sources of zoonoses

INFORMATION ON THE REPORTING AND MONITORING SYSTEM

Country:

Reporting Year:

Norway

Laboratory name Description Contribution

Norwegian VeterinaryInstitute

The Norwegian Veterinary Institute (NVI)is a governmental agency funded by theMinistry of Agriculture and Food,Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairsand the Norwegian Research Council.The primary function is the supply ofindependent research based advisorysupport to the governing authoritiesregarding animal health, fish health andfood safety.

Contributing with data and text. Thereporting officer is employed at theZoonosis Centre at NVI.

Norwegian Food SafetyAuthority

The Norwegian Food Safety Authority(NFSA) is the competent authority forthe purpose of Directive 2003/99/EC ofthe European Parliament and of theCouncil.

Contributing with data and text.

National Institute ofNutrition and SeafoodResearch

The National Institute of Nutrition andSeafood Research (NIFES) is aresearch institute with administrativetasks. The institute is linked directly tothe Ministry of Fisheries and CoastalAffairs and act as an advisor to theMinistry in matters concerning the fjordto fork production chain of seafood (bothwild and farmed). NIFES also providesindependent and research basedadvisory support to other governmentalbodies and to the Norwegian fisheriesand aquaculture industries.



INFORMATION ON THE REPORTING AND MONITORING SYSTEM

Laboratory name Description Contribution

Norwegian Institute ofPublic Health

The Norwegian Institute of Public Health(NIPH) is the national governmentalcentre for communicable diseaseprevention and control. The instituteperforms research and surveillance ofcommunicable diseases in man andadvices governmental and municipalauthorities and the public on theprevention of communicable diseases,outbreaks and antimicrobial resistance.The institute also has responsibilitiesconcerning chronic diseaseepidemiology, environmental medicineand forensic toxicology.


Norway - 2010


PREFACEThis report is submitted to the European Commission in accordance with Article 9 of CouncilDirective 2003/99/ EC*. The information has also been forwarded to the European Food SafetyAuthority (EFSA).

The report contains information on trends and sources of zoonoses and zoonotic agents in

The information covers the occurrence of these diseases and agents in humans, animals,foodstuffs and in some cases also in feedingstuffs. In addition the report includes data onantimicrobial resistance in some zoonotic agents and commensal bacteria as well asinformation on epidemiological investigations of foodborne outbreaks. Complementary data onsusceptible animal populations in the country is also given. The information given covers bothzoonoses that are important for the public health in the whole European Community as well aszoonoses, which are relevant on the basis of the national epidemiological situation.The report describes the monitoring systems in place and the prevention and control strategiesapplied in the country. For some zoonoses this monitoring is based on legal requirements laiddown by the Community Legislation, while for the other zoonoses national approaches areapplied.The report presents the results of the examinations carried out in the reporting year. A nationalevaluation of the epidemiological situation, with special reference to trends and sources ofzoonotic infections, is given. Whenever possible, the relevance of findings in foodstuffs andanimals to zoonoses cases in humans is evaluated.The information covered by this report is used in the annual Community Summary Report onzoonoses that is published each year by EFSA.

Norway during the year 2010 .

* Directive 2003/ 99/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2003on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents, amending Decision 90/ 424/ EEC andrepealing Council Directive 92/ 117/ EEC, OJ L 325, 17.11.2003, p. 31

Norway - 2010


List of Contents

1 ANIMAL POPULATIONS 12 INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC ZOONOSES AND ZOONOTIC AGENTS 6

72.1 SALMONELLOSIS72.1.1 General evaluation of the national situation82.1.2 Salmonellosis in humans

102.1.3 Salmonella in foodstuffs212.1.4 Salmonella in animals462.1.5 Salmonella in feedingstuffs542.1.6 Salmonella serovars and phagetype distribution562.1.7 Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella isolates682.2 CAMPYLOBACTERIOSIS682.2.1 General evaluation of the national situation702.2.2 Campylobacteriosis in humans722.2.3 Campylobacter in foodstuffs732.2.4 Campylobacter in animals762.2.5 Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates852.3 LISTERIOSIS852.3.1 General evaluation of the national situation872.3.2 Listeriosis in humans882.3.3 Listeria in foodstuffs902.3.4 Listeria in animals922.4 E. COLI INFECTIONS922.4.1 General evaluation of the national situation942.4.2 E. coli infections in humans962.4.3 Escherichia coli, pathogenic in foodstuffs972.4.4 Escherichia coli, pathogenic in animals992.5 TUBERCULOSIS, MYCOBACTERIAL DISEASES992.5.1 General evaluation of the national situation

1002.5.2 Tuberculosis, mycobacterial diseases in humans1022.5.3 Mycobacterium in animals1112.6 BRUCELLOSIS1112.6.1 General evaluation of the national situation1122.6.2 Brucellosis in humans1132.6.3 Brucella in animals1242.7 YERSINIOSIS1242.7.1 General evaluation of the national situation1262.7.2 Yersiniosis in humans1282.7.3 Yersinia in animals1302.8 TRICHINELLOSIS1302.8.1 General evaluation of the national situation

Norway - 2010


1312.8.2 Trichinellosis in humans1322.8.3 Trichinella in animals1372.9 ECHINOCOCCOSIS1372.9.1 General evaluation of the national situation1382.9.2 Echinococcosis in humans1392.9.3 Echinococcus in animals1432.10 TOXOPLASMOSIS1432.10.1 General evaluation of the national situation1442.10.2 Toxoplasmosis in humans1452.10.3 Toxoplasma in animals1472.11 RABIES1472.11.1 General evaluation of the national situation1482.11.2 Rabies in humans1492.11.3 Lyssavirus (rabies) in animals1532.12 STAPHYLOCOCCUS INFECTION1532.12.1 General evaluation of the national situation1532.13 Q-FEVER1532.13.1 General evaluation of the national situation1542.13.2 Coxiella (Q-fever) in animals1562.14 TULARAEMIA1562.14.1 General evaluation of the national situation1562.14.2 Francisella in animals

3 INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC INDICATORS OF ANTIMICROBIAL 1571583.1 ESCHERICHIA COLI, NON-PATHOGENIC1583.1.1 General evaluation of the national situation1593.1.2 Antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli, non-pathogenic1673.2 ENTEROCOCCUS, NON-PATHOGENIC1673.2.1 General evaluation of the national situation1673.2.2 Antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus, non-pathogenic isolates

4 INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC MICROBIOLOGICAL AGENTS 1741754.1 ENTEROBACTER SAKAZAKII1754.1.1 General evaluation of the national situation1754.2 HISTAMINE1754.2.1 General evaluation of the national situation1754.2.2 Histamine in foodstuffs1774.3 STAPHYLOCOCCAL ENTEROTOXINS1774.3.1 General evaluation of the national situation

5 FOODBORNE OUTBREAKS 178


1. ANIMAL POPULATIONS

The relevance of the findings on zoonoses and zoonotic agents has to be related to the size andnature of the animal population in the country.

1Norway - 2010


Sources of informationData on herds and animals: Register of Production Subsidies.

Data on slaughtered animals: Register of Slaughtered Animals.

Dates the figures relate to and the content of the figuresData on herds and animals: As of 31 July 2010.

Definitions used for different types of animals, herds, flocks and holdings as well as the typescovered by the information

Herd means an animal or group of animals kept on a holding as an epidemiological unit (article 2.3(a) ofRegulation (EC) No 2160/2003). In Norway, there is generally only one herd of the same animal speciesper holding.

A flock (poultry) is defined as all poultry of the same health status kept on the same premises or in thesame enclosure and constituting a single epidemiological unit; in the case of housed poultry, this includesall birds sharing the same airspace (article 2.3(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003).

National evaluation of the numbers of susceptible population and trends in these figures

For cattle, swine, sheep, goat and poultry (layers and broilers) there has been a downward trend in thenumber of herds/holdings during the last decade. However, the average number of animals perherd/holding has increased.

Geographical distribution and size distribution of the herds, flocks and holdingsCattle: Most of the cattle herds are dairy herds, the average herd size being 21.4 cows. There are also anumber of specialized beef herds with an average number of suckling cows of 14.6. A few herds arecombined dairy and beef herds. The cattle herds are distributed throughout Norway with the main partbeing in the western and middle parts of Norway.

Swine: The Norwegian swine population is relatively small with products destined for the national market.A national breeding program is organized by the industry. Approximately 120 approved elite and multiplierbreeding herds house 11% of the live sows in the population, while more than 95% of the sows producingpiglets for fattening and slaughter are raised in these herds. The swine population is denser in somecounties and about 60% of the swine production is concentrated in four counties in the southern andmiddle part of Norway.

Sheep: The Norwegian sheep flocks are widely distributed over the country, with the largest populationfound in the south-west. The sheep population consists of combined meat and wool producing breeds,with various Norwegian breeds predominating.

Goat: The Norwegian goat population is principally composed of one Norwegian breed. The main productis milk used for cheese production. The goat flocks are located in some mountainous regions in thesouthern part of the country, in the fjord districts of the western part, and in the northern counties.

Poultry: The Norwegian poultry production has a hierarchical structure and is strictly regulated. Egg andbroiler meat production are the most important branches, but the number of holdings keeping turkey and

A. Information on susceptible animal population

2Norway - 2010


other species is increasing. The Norwegian layer population consists of two strains (Lohmann white andShaver white). The layer population is located throughout Norway. The commercial broiler productionconsists of one strain (Ross). The broiler production is mainly located in five counties in the southern andmiddle part of Norway.

Additional informationThe livestock production in Norway is targeted for the national market. Until 1999 there was a general banon the import of live animals and animal products to Norway. Following the extension of the EuropeanEconomic Area (EEA) Agreement 1 January 1999 regarding Veterinary and Phytosanitary matters, thegeneral ban was lifted. However, imports of live animals remained limited.

3Norway - 2010

4

Norw

ay - 2010 Report on trends and sources of zoonoses

Norw

ay - 2010

Table Susceptible animal populations

61500 4200meat production animals

32100 950mixed herds

213800 10200dairy cows and heifers

306900 872100 16800

Cattle (bovine animals)

- in total

7100 80Deer farmed - in total

2Ducks parent breeding flocks

3 2grandparent breeding flocksfor egg production line

20 11parent breeding flocks for eggproduction line

4600 60194500 600broilers

988 882400 3808900 660laying hens1)

140 68

Gallus gallus (fowl)

parent breeding flocks formeat production line

36900 400milk goats

24300 67600 1300

Goats

- in total

Number of herds or flocks Number of slaughteredanimals

Livestock numbers (liveanimals) Number of holdings

Animal species Category of animals Data Year* Data Year* Data Year* Data Year*

* Only if different than current reporting year

5

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Susceptible animal populations

Comments:1) Only flocks >250 birds2) Including small numbers of ducks and geese. Only flocks >25 birds

57800 1400breeding animals

461400 2200fattening pigs

1565700 846700 2400

Pigs

- in total

887600 14600animals over 1 year

1228100 2296900 14800

Sheep

- in total

1500Solipeds, domestic horses - in total

15parent breeding flocks

1295700 363200 79

Turkeys

- in total2)

Number of herds or flocks Number of slaughteredanimals

Livestock numbers (liveanimals) Number of holdings

Animal species Category of animals Data Year* Data Year* Data Year* Data Year*

Numbers between 100 and 1000 rounded to the nearest ten, numbers >1000 rounded to the nearest hundred.

Column "Number of herds or flocks" are only used for poultry flocks. For other animal species, number of herds equals number of holdings and such data and data on poultry holdings are given in column "Number ofholdings".

Footnote:


2. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC ZOONOSES AND ZOONOTIC AGENTS

Zoonoses are diseases or infections, which are naturally transmissible directly or indirectlybetween animals and humans. Foodstuffs serve often as vehicles of zoonotic infections.Zoonotic agents cover viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites or other biological entities that arelikely to cause zoonoses.

6Norway - 2010


2.1 SALMONELLOSIS

2.1.1 General evaluation of the national situation

History of the disease and/or infection in the countryThe situation regarding Salmonella in feedingstuffs, animals and food produced in Norway has for manyyears been very good. Approximately 75-80% of the cases of salmonellosis in humans are acquiredabroad.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThere is no alarming development in the number of salmonellosis cases in humans, neither for domesticnor imported cases. However, there seem to be have been a slightly increasing trend in domesticinfections during the last decade.

For feedingstuffs and animals, the situation is very good and has been so for many years. Regarding food,the food produced in Norway is virtually free from Salmonella. Risk of exposure is mainly associated withinternational trade in food.

Relevance of the findings in animals, feedingstuffs and foodstuffs to human cases (as asource of infection)

The Norwegian Salmonella Control Programmes have documented that live cattle, swine, and poultry inNorway as well as domestically produced food products of animal origin are virtually free from Salmonella.Each year, approximately 75-80% of reported cases of salmonellosis in humans have acquired theinfection abroad. This illustrates that domestic food products of animal origin represent a small risk to theconsumer in regard to Salmonella, an assumption that is supported by case-control studies.

A. General evaluation

7Norway - 2010


2.1.2 Salmonellosis in humans

Reporting system in place for the human casesHuman cases are reported to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS),from microbiological laboratories as well as from clinical doctors. The system distinguishes betweendomestic and imported cases. The severity of the disease at the time of reporting is also recorded.However, the surveillance system does not follow individual patients over time to record further diseasedevelopment and final outcome.

Case definitionA case from which Salmonella other than S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi has been isolated or a clinicalcompatible case with either an epidemiological link to a culture confirmed case or serology indicatingrecent infection.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedBacteriology (isolation of the agent from a clinical sample) followed by confirmation, including serotypingand sometimes genotyping, at the National Reference Laboratory.

Notification system in placeAccording to the Communicable Disease Act, human cases are notifiable to the Norwegian SurveillanceSystem for Communicable Diseases (MSIS) since 1975.

History of the disease and/or infection in the countryThe recorded incidence of salmonellosis in Norway has increased during the last three decades with asharp rise in the early 1980s due to the emergence of S. Enteritidis. In the majority of cases ofsalmonellosis (approximately 80%), the patients have acquired the disease abroad. The number ofreported cases of salmonellosis corresponds well with charter tourism to foreign countries; in years withan increased charter tourism, such as in the mid-1980s and in the period 1992-1998, the incidence ofsalmonellosis also increased, whereas in years with a lower charter tourism activity due to economicaldepression, such as in the period 1988-1991, the incidence of salmonellosis dropped. Since 1998, theincidence of salmonellosis has leveled off. However, an increase was noted during 2001, mostly due to afew large outbreaks.

Since 1984, S. Enteritidis has become the most common serovar reported, except in 1987 when it wassurpassed by S. Typhimurium due to a domestic outbreak traced to contaminated chocolate bars. WhileS. Typhimurium predominated in earlier years, S. Enteritidis has increased substantially from a low level in1975-1982 to a higher level from the mid-1990s. No increase of similar magnitude has been observed forany other serovar.

The proportion of imported cases of S. Enteritidis infections is particularly high (approximately 90% amongpatients with known place of acquisition) as this pathogen is not established in the Norwegian poultryproduction. Among domestic cases, S. Typhimurium is the most common serovar. This serovar, althoughnot established among food producing animals in Norway, does occur in the Norwegian environment suchas in wild birds and hedgehogs.

Results of the investigation

A. Salmonellosis in humans

8Norway - 2010


In 2010, a total of 1367 cases of salmonellosis were reported (incidence rate 27.8 per 100 000), of which229 (17%) were infected in Norway. Altogether 583 (43%) of the cases were due to S. Enteritidis, of which57 (10%) were infected in Norway. Altogether, 164 (12%) of the cases were due to S. Typhimurium, ofwhich 57 (35%) were domestic cases.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThere was a decrease in the overall number of Salmonella-infections in 2010. Most of the reduction is inthe number of patients who have contracted the infection abroad.

For domestically aquired infections, 2006 and 2007 were record years when nearly 400 cases contractedsalmonellosis inside Norway, - the highest recorded number since 1987. However, both in 2008 and in2009, there has been a decrease in the number of patients who get the infection without travelling prior togetting ill. This decrease is probably linked to the decrease in cases who contract salmonellosis abroad,since we assume that a number of the domestic cases are secondary cases to imported infections.

In 2010 three small outbreaks of salmonellosis were recorded in Norway. During the autumn, ten personswere reported ill with Salmonella Poona and 8 persons with Salmonella Napoli. In the same periodSweden also registered several cases of Salmonella Poona with identical MLVA profile as the Norwegiancases. An investigation was done in cooperation with Sweden, but the source of infection is so far notfound. In addition one small outbreak of S.Typhimurium was reported from a private household wheremeat bought abroad was the suspected source. Domestic outbreaks of salmonellosis recorded in recentyears illustrate that many kinds of foods may be involved in outbreaks, also those of non-animal origin,including imported foods.

Relevance as zoonotic diseaseThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programmes have documented that live cattle, swine, and poultry inNorway as well as domestically produced food products of animal origin are virtually free from Salmonella.Each year, approximately 75-80% of reported cases of salmonellosis in humans have acquired theinfection abroad. This illustrates that domestic food products of animal origin represent a small risk to theconsumer in regard to Salmonella, an assumption that is supported by case-control studies.

However, data show that S. Typhimurium occurs endemically in the environment representing a risk forspread through wild animals and untreated water. In defined areas, where an endemic situation in thehedgehog and passerine bird populations has been established, annually minor outbreaks and sporadiccases occur.

Additional informationPatients whose work represents a risk for spread of the disease, e.g., in food production and health care,are advised to stay away from work as long as they have symptoms. It is recommended that for thesepatients three consecutive faecal samples examined after the symptoms have disappeared should benegative before resuming work.

9Norway - 2010


2.1.3 Salmonella in foodstuffs

Monitoring systemSampling strategy

At slaughterhouse and cutting plantThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme: Each year, a number of carcass swabs and lymph nodesamples are collected randomly from the pig population by slaughter and proportional to theslaughterhouses' throughput. The sampling of carcass swabs is described in this chapter, while thesampling of lymph nodes is described in the chapter on Salmonella in animals.

Samples of crushed meat are each year collected according to production capacity of cutting plants.At meat processing plant

Until 1st of March 2010 when the Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 and Regulation (EC) No853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council came into force, minced meat and meatpreparations were sampled according to Council Directive 94/65/EC.

Frequency of the samplingAt slaughterhouse and cutting plant

At slaughterhouse: Detection of an annual prevalence of 0.1% by 95% confidence level. At cutting plant:According to production capacity: less than 2 tons; twice a year, 2-20 tons: once a month, greater than 20tons: once a week.

At meat processing plantAccording to Council Directive 94/65/EC until the new regulations were implemented. Thereafteraccording to Regulation 2073/2005. The frequencies may, however, vary according to the origin of the rawmaterial and the demonstrated regional or national salmonella prevalence in the corresponding animalpopulations.

Type of specimen takenAt slaughterhouse and cutting plant

At slaughterhouse: Surface of carcass. At cutting plant: Crushed meat from equipment or trimmings.

At meat processing plantMinced meat or meat preparations.

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)At slaughterhouse and cutting plant

The upper inner part of the hind legs/pelvic entrance and the cut surface area of the abdomen and chestare swabbed, covering an area of approximately 1400 cm2 of each carcass.

Cutting plant: Each sample consists of 25 grams of meat.At meat processing plant

Each sample consists of 25 grams of minced meat or meat preparations.

A. Salmonella spp. in pig meat and products thereof

10Norway - 2010


Definition of positive findingAt slaughterhouse and cutting plant

A positive sample is a sample from which Salmonella has been isolated.

At meat processing plantA positive sample is a sample from which Salmonella has been isolated.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedAt slaughterhouse and cutting plant

Bacteriological method: NMKL No 71:1999

At meat processing plantBacteriological method: NMKL No 71:1999

Control program/mechanismsThe control program/strategies in place

The Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme is mandatory. Detection of Salmonella, irrespective ofserovar, is notifiable.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesWhenever Salmonella is detected in samples taken in the National Control Programmes, the competentauthorities must be notified without delay. Actions will be taken to identify and eliminate the source of thecontamination in order to prevent further spread.

When Salmonella is detected in food already on the market, contaminated food will be withdrawn from themarket and destroyed or, exceptionally, submitted to processing by a treatment eliminating the hazard.Investigation into the source of the contamination is initiated if relevant. If Salmonella is detected in foodcontrols at the Border Inspection Posts, the consignments will be either rejected or destroyed or,exceptionally, submitted to processing by a treatment eliminating the hazard.

Notification system in placeThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme is mandatory. Detection of Salmonella, irrespective ofserovar, is notifiable.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, a total of 1811 carcasses were swabbed, all were negative. None of the samples of crushed meatfrom pig were positive. For details, see tables.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programmes document that domestically produced food products ofanimal origin are virtually free from Salmonella. The surveillance data indicate that the overall prevalenceis below 0.1%.

Relevance of the findings in animals to findings in foodstuffs and to human cases (as a sourceof infection)

Red and white meat produced in Norway is virtually free from Salmonella, and the risk of contractingSalmonella from domestically produced animal products is small. A connection between meat or meatproducts of domestic origin and human infection has never been established.

11Norway - 2010




At slaughterhouse and cutting plantThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme: Each year, a number of carcass swabs and lymph nodesamples are collected randomly from the cattle population by slaughter and proportional to theslaughterhouses' throughput. The sampling of carcass swabs is described in this chapter, while thesampling of lymph nodes is described in the chapter on Salmonella in animals.

Samples of crushed meat are each year collected according to production capacity of cutting plants.At meat processing plant

Until 1st of March 2010 when the Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 and Regulation (EC) No853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council came into force, minced meat and meatpreparations were sampled according to Council Directive 94/65/EC.

Frequency of the samplingAt slaughterhouse and cutting plant

At slaughterhouse: Detection of an annual prevalence of 0.1% by 95% confidence level. At cutting plant:According to production capacity: less than 2 tons: twice a year, 2-20 tons: once a month, greater than 20tons: once a week.

At meat processing plantAccording to Council Directive 94/65/EC until the new regulations were implemented. Thereafteraccording to Regulation 2073/2005. The frequencies may, however, vary according to the origin of the rawmaterial and the demonstrated regional or national salmonella prevalence in the corresponding animalpopulations.

Type of specimen takenAt slaughterhouse and cutting plant

At slaughterhouse: Surface of carcass. At cutting plant: Crushed meat from equipment or from trimmings.

At meat processing plantMinced meat or meat preparations.


Slaughterhouse: The upper inner part of the hind legs/pelvic entrance and the cut surface area of theabdomen and chest are swabbed, covering an area of approximately 1400 cm2 of each carcass.

Cutting plant: Each sample consists of 25 grams of meat.At meat processing plant

Each sample consists of 25 grams of minced meat or meat preparations.



At meat processing plant

B. Salmonella spp. in bovine meat and products thereof

13Norway - 2010



Diagnostic/analytical methods usedAt slaughterhouse and cutting plant

Bacteriological method: NMKL No 71:1999

At meat processing plantBacteriological method: NMKL No 71:1999


The Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme is mandatory. Detection of Salmonella, irrespective ofserovar, is notifiable.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesWhenever Salmonella is detected in samples taken in the National Control Programmes, the competentauthorities must be notified without delay. Actions will be taken to identify and eliminate the source of thecontamination in order to prevent further spread.

When Salmonella is detected in food already on the market, contaminated food will be withdrawn from themarket and destroyed or, exceptionally, submitted to processing by a treatment eliminating the hazard.Investigation into the source of the contamination is initiated if relevant. If Salmonella is detected in foodcontrols at the Border Inspection Posts, the consignments will be either rejected or destroyed or,exceptionally, submitted to processing by a treatment eliminating the hazard.

Notification system in placeThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme is mandatory. Detection of Salmonella, irrespective ofserovar, is notifiable.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, a total of 1626 carcasses were swabbed, all were negative for Salmonella. None of the samplesof crushed bovine meat were positive. For details, see tables.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programmes document that domestically produced food products ofanimal origin are virtually free from Salmonella. The surveillance data indicate that the overall prevalenceis below 0.1%.


Red and white meat produced in Norway is virtually free from Salmonella, and the risk of contractingSalmonella from meat and meat products of domestic origin is negligible.

14Norway - 2010



At slaughterhouse and cutting plantBroiler meat and products thereof are monitored indirectly by testing all broiler flocks before slaughter -see chapter on Salmonella spp. in Gallus gallus - breeding flocks for meat production and broiler flocks.Additional testing at the slaughterhouses or cutting plants is not required.

Surveys are performed occasionally.

C. Salmonella spp. in broiler meat and products thereof

15Norway - 2010



Eggs and egg products are monitored indirectly by monitoring of the layer population, see chapter onSalmonella spp. in Gallus gallus - breeding flocks for egg production and flocks of laying hens.

Additional testing of egg products is carried out by the food business operators as an integral part of theirown check procedures.

D. Salmonella spp. in eggs and egg products

16Norway - 2010



At slaughterhouse and cutting plantTurkey meat and products thereof are monitored indirectly by testing all turkey flocks before slaughter -see chapter on Salmonella spp. in turkey - breeding flocks and meat production flocks. Additional testingat the slaughterhouses or cutting plants is not required.

Occasionally, surveys are performed.

E. Salmonella spp. in turkey meat and products thereof

17Norway - 2010


Monitoring systemMethods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)

F. Salmonella spp. in food - Meat from sheep

18Norway - 2010

19

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella in other food

NIFES Single 25 g 14 0Crustaceans (Cooked)

NIFES Single 25 g 15 0Crustaceans (Raw)

NIFES Single 25 g 17 0Fats and oils (excluding butter) - oils (Fish oil)

NIFES Single 25 g 20 0Fish (Farmed)

NIFES Single 25 g 172 0Fish (Wild catch)

NIFES Single 25 g 1 0Molluscan shellfish - cooked

NIFES Single 25 g 99 0Molluscan shellfish - raw

Source ofinformation

Sampling unit Sampleweight Units tested

Total unitspositive forSalmonella

S. EnteritidisS.

TyphimuriumSalmonella

spp.,unspecified

20

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella in red meat and products thereof

Comments:1) Carcass swabs2) Carcass swabs3) Crushed meat from pig and cattle

NSCP Single swab 1626 0Meat from bovine animals - fresh - atslaughterhouse

1)

NSCP Single swab 1811 0Meat from pig - fresh - at slaughterhouse2)

NSCP Single 25 g 1656 0Meat, red meat (meat from bovines, pigs, goats,sheep, horses, donkeys, bison and water buffalos) -at cutting plant

3)




S. EnteritidisS.


spp.,unspecified

NSCP = Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme

Footnote:


2.1.4 Salmonella in animals


Breeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary)The Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme established pursuant fo Article 5 of Regulation (EC)2160/2003 and approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) (364/07/COL) includes all poultrybreeding flocks. Sampling takes place at the initiative of the food business operator and by the CompetentAuthority according to Regulation (EC) 1003/2005 (in force throughout 2010).

Other strategies: Animals are tested in relation to clinical surveillance and import. Norway is also grantedadditional guaranties according to Commission decision 2003/644/EC.

Frequency of the samplingBreeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Day-old chicks

Every flock is sampled

Breeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Rearing periodEvery flock is sampled twice

Breeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Production periodEvery second week

Type of specimen takenBreeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Day-old chicks

Internal linings of delivery boxes

Breeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Rearing periodSocks/ boot swabs

Breeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Production periodSocks/ boot swabs

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Breeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Day-old chicks

All flocks: Transport crates are tested (crate liners or swabs).

Breeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Rearing periodAll flocks: Tested at 4 weeks of age and 2 weeks before moving by two pairs of socks.

Breeding flocks: Production periodAll flocks: Tested every 2nd week by two pairs of socks (caged birds: faecal samples) and one dustsample.

Case definitionBreeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Day-old chicks

A. Salmonella spp. in Gallus Gallus - breeding flocks

21Norway - 2010


A positive flock is a flock from which Salmonella (irrespective of serovar) has been isolated from at leastone sample.

Breeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Rearing periodA positive flock is a flock from which Salmonella (irrespective of serovar) has been isolated from at leastone sample.

Breeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Production periodA positive flock is a flock from which Salmonella (irrespective of serovar) has been isolated from at leastone sample.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedBreeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Day-old chicks

Bacteriological method: ISO 6579:2002

Breeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Rearing periodBacteriological method: ISO 6579:2002

Breeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary): Production periodBacteriological method: ISO 6579:2002

Vaccination policyBreeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary)

Vaccination against Salmonella is prohibited in Norway.


Breeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary)The Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme is mandatory. Detection of Salmonella, irrespective ofserovar, is notifiable.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesBreeding flocks (separate elite, grand parent and parent flocks when necessary)

Whenever Salmonella is detected, the competent authorities must be notified without delay. Also, relevantfood business operators, such as slaughterhouses, hatcheries, and egg collecting centers receivinganimals or animal products from an infected animal holding must be informed. Stringent restrictionsincluding cleaning and disinfection, control of animal movement and control of person admission will beimposed on an infected animal holding. Infected animals must be isolated from other animals. WheneverSalmonella is detected, epidemiological investigations also including the feed suppliers will be initiated inorder to identify and eliminate the source of infection. If Salmonella is detected, the flock will be destroyedor subjected to sanitation slaughter. Eggs from hatcheries where Salmonella has been detected will bedestroyed or pasteurized. If Salmonella is detected in chicks, all chicks from the same hatchery machinemust be destroyed. Farms that have received infected chicks will be considered infected and restrictionswill be imposed on these farms as well. Restrictions will be lifted when infected rooms have been cleanedand disinfected, bacteriological testing following cleaning and disinfection gives a negative test result, andthe rooms have been empty for at least 30 days .

Notification system in placeThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme is mandatory. Detection of Salmonella, irrespective ofserovar, has been notifiable since 1965.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, a total of 105 rearing flocks and 156 production flocks were tested, all were negative for

22Norway - 2010


Salmonella.

In addition to the Control Programme, samples have been taken in relation to clinical problems, follow upor various projects. None of these samples were positive for Salmonella. For details, see table.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe favourable salmonella situation in Norwegian poultry is partly dependent upon an efficient control ofbreeding flocks. Due to extensive surveillance during many years, stringent measures in case of positivefindings, and restricted import, poultry breeding flocks in Norway are virtually free from Salmonella. S.Agona was found in a broiler parent flock in 2001.


The Norwegian Salmonella Control Programmes have documented that so far poultry in Norway as wellas domestically produced poultry products are virtually free from Salmonella. Each year, approximately 75-80% of reported cases of salmonellosis in humans have acquired the infection abroad. This illustratesthat domestic food products of animal origin represent a small risk to the consumer in regard toSalmonella, an assumption that is supported by case-control studies.

23Norway - 2010



Broiler flocksThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme: All poultry flocks are tested before slaughter. Samplingtakes place at the initiative of the food business operator and once a year by the Competent Authorityaccording to Regulation (EC) 646/2007.If poultry for slaughter are imported, additional guarantiesaccording to 95/410/EC applies.

Frequency of the samplingBroiler flocks: Before slaughter at farm


Type of specimen takenBroiler flocks: Before slaughter at farm

Sock/boot swabs and dust swabs.

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Broiler flocks: Before slaughter at farm

Every flock is sampled by one pair of socks and one dust sample.

Case definitionBroiler flocks: Before slaughter at farm


Diagnostic/analytical methods usedBroiler flocks: Before slaughter at farm


Vaccination policyBroiler flocks



Broiler flocksEvery flock is sampled before slaughter.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesBroiler flocks: Before slaughter at farm

Whenever Salmonella is detected, the competent authorities must be notified without delay. Also, relevantfood business operators, such as slaughterhouses, hatcheries, and egg collecting centers receivinganimals or animal products from an infected animal holding must be informed. Stringent restrictionsincluding cleaning and disinfection, control of animal movement and control of person admission will beimposed on an infected animal holding. Infected animals must be isolated from other animals. WheneverSalmonella is detected, epidemiological investigations also including the feed suppliers will be initiated inorder to identify and eliminate the source of infection. If Salmonella is detected, the flock will be destroyed

B. Salmonella spp. in Gallus Gallus - broiler flocks

24Norway - 2010


or subjected to sanitation slaughter. Eggs from hatcheries where Salmonella has been detected will bedestroyed or pasteurized. If Salmonella is detected in chicks, all chicks from the same hatchery machinemust be destroyed. Farms that have received infected chicks will be considered infected and restrictionswill be imposed on these farms as well. Restrictions will be lifted when infected rooms have been cleanedand disinfected, bacteriological testing following cleaning and disinfection gives a negative test result, andthe rooms have been empty for at least 30 days .


Results of the investigationIn 2010, 4549 broiler flocks (batches for slaughter) were investigated, and two were positive (S.Senftenberg and S. Brandenburg respectively). These two flocks were also positive in the follow upsampling. For details, see table.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe favourable salmonella situation in Norwegian poultry is partly dependent upon an efficient control ofbreeding flocks. Due to extensive surveillance during many years, stringent measures in case of positivefindings, and restricted import, poultry breeding flocks in Norway are virtually free from Salmonella. S.Agona was found in a broiler parent flock in 2001. S. Enteritidis was for the first time detected inNorwegian poultry production in a broiler flock in 2007.



25Norway - 2010



Laying hens flocksThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme: All laying hen flocks are tested at the farm. Samplingtakes place at the initiative of the food business operator and by the Competent Authority according toRegulation (EC) 1168/2006.Other strategies: Animals are tested in relation to clinical surveillance and import. Additional guarantiesaccording to Commission decision 2004/235/EC also applies to Norway.

Frequency of the samplingLaying hens: Day-old chicks


Laying hens: Rearing period2 weeks prior to moving

Laying hens: Production periodEvery 15 weeks

Laying hens: Before slaughter at farmEvery flock for slaughter is sampled

Type of specimen takenLaying hens: Day-old chicks

Internal linings of delivery boxes

Laying hens: Rearing periodSocks/ boot swabs

Laying hens: Production periodSocks/boot swabs or faeces (caged birds).

Laying hens: Before slaughter at farmSocks/boot swabs or faeces (caged birds).

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Laying hens: Day-old chicks

All flocks: Transport crates are tested (crate liners or swabs).

Laying hens: Rearing periodAll flocks: Tested two weeks before moving by 2 pair of socks (caged birds: faeces).

Laying hens: Production periodAll flocks: Tested every 15 weeks by two pairs of socks (caged birds: faeces).

Laying hens: Before slaughter at farmAll flocks for slaughter: Tested before slaughter by 2 pair of socks (caged birds: faeces).

Case definition

C. Salmonella spp. in Gallus Gallus - flocks of laying hens

26Norway - 2010


Laying hens: Day-old chicksA positive flock is a flock from which Salmonella (irrespective of serovar) has been isolated from at leastone sample.

Laying hens: Rearing periodA positive flock is a flock from which Salmonella (irrespective of serovar) has been isolated from at leastone sample.

Laying hens: Production periodA positive flock is a flock from which Salmonella (irrespective of serovar) has been isolated from at leastone sample.

Laying hens: Before slaughter at farmA positive flock is a flock from which Salmonella (irrespective of serovar) has been isolated from at leastone sample.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedLaying hens: Day-old chicks


Laying hens: Rearing periodBacteriological method: ISO 6579:2002

Laying hens: Production periodBacteriological method: ISO 6579:2002

Laying hens: Before slaughter at farmBacteriological method: ISO 6579:2002

Vaccination policyLaying hens flocks



Laying hens flocksThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme is mandatory. Detection of Salmonella, irrespective ofserovar, is notifiable.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesLaying hens flocks

Whenever Salmonella is detected, the competent authorities must be notified without delay. Also, relevantfood business operators, sch as slaughterhouses, hatcheries, and egg collecting centers receivinganimals or animal products from an infected animal holding must be informed. Stringent restrictionsincluding cleaning and disinfection, control of animal movement and control of person admission will beimposed on an infected animal holding. Infected animals must be isolated from other animals. WheneverSalmonella is detected, epidemiological investigations also including the feed suppliers will be initiated inorder to identify and eliminate the source of infection. If Salmonella is detected, the whole flock will bedestroyed or subjected to sanitation slaughter. Eggs from hatcheries where Salmonella has been detectedwill be destroyed or pasteurized. If Salmonella is detected in chicks, all chicks from the same hatcherymachine must be destroyed. Farms that have received infected chicks will be considered infected andrestrictions will be imposed on these farms as well. Restrictions will be lifted when infected rooms havebeen cleaned and disinfected, bacteriological testing following cleaning and disinfection gives a negative

27Norway - 2010


test result, and the rooms have been empty for at least 30 days .


Results of the investigationIn 2010, a total of 146 rearing and 981 adult flocks were tested, all were negative.

For details, see table.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe favourable salmonella situation in Norwegian poultry is partly dependent upon an efficient control ofbreeding flocks. Due to extensive surveillance during many years, stringent measures in case of positivefindings, and restricted import, poultry breeding flocks in Norway are virtually free from Salmonella. S.Enteritidis has never been detected in Norwegian breeding flocks or in laying hens.



28Norway - 2010



The Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme: Each year, a number of lymph node samples andcarcass swabs are collected by slaughter and proportionally distributed according to the slaughterhouses’capacities. The sampling of lymph nodes is described in this chapter, while the sampling of carcass swabsis described in the chapter on Salmonella in foodstuffs.

Other strategies: Animals are tested in relation to clinical surveillance and import.Frequency of the sampling

Animals at slaughter (herd based approach)Detection of an animal prevalence level of 0.1% by 95% confidence

Type of specimen takenAnimals at slaughter (herd based approach)

Lymph nodes

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Animals at farm

If there are clinical problems with diarrhoea, faecal samples will be taken.

Animals at slaughter (herd based approach)From each carcass at least five ileo-caecal lymph nodes are aseptically removed and pooled in a plasticbag. All samples are kept refrigerated during the period of sampling and sent to the laboratory the sameday.

Case definitionAnimals at farm


Animals at slaughter (herd based approach)A positive sample is a sample from which Salmonella has been isolated.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedAnimals at farm


Animals at slaughter (herd based approach)Bacteriological method: NMKL No 71:1999

Vaccination policyVaccination against Salmonella is prohibited in Norway.


The Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme is mandatory. Detection of Salmonella, irrespective ofserovar, has been notifiable since 1965.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single cases

D. Salmonella spp. in bovine animals

29Norway - 2010


Whenever Salmonella is detected, the competent authorities must be notified without delay. Actions will betaken to identify and eliminate the source of the contamination in order to prevent further spread. Also,slaughterhouses, dairies, and food production facilities receiving animals or animal products from aninfected animal holding must be informed. Stringent restrictions including cleaning and disinfection, controlof animal movement and control of person admission will be imposed on an infected animal holding.

Infected animals must be isolated from other animals. Animals are not allowed to be sent to slaughterwithout permission from the Food Safety Authority and if sent to slaughter, the slaughterhouse must benotified so that sanitation slaughtering can be conducted. Milk from infected herds must be pasteurised.

Whenever Salmonella is detected, epidemiological investigations also including the feed suppliers will beinitiated in order to identify and eliminate the source of infection. There will be intensified sampling, also onfarms that have had contact with the infected holding. Restrictions will be lifted when all animals havebeen tested with a negative test result in two consecutive samplings with a minimum interval of 30 days.Following lifting of the restrictions, retesting will be conducted after approx. six months.


Results of the investigationIn 2010, a total of 1854 animals were sampled (lymph node samples) in the Norwegian SalmonellaControl Programme. All samples were negative for Salmonella.

In addition, 1266 samples from 186 different herds were investigated, mainly due to follow up of positivefindings. Three herds were positive for S. Bovismorbificans. One of the herds also had swine positive forS. Bovismorbificans.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programmes document that Norwegian food producing animals arevirtually free from Salmonella. The surveillance data indicate that the overall prevalence is below 0.%.

30Norway - 2010



Breeding herdsThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme: All elite breeding herds are tested.

Other strategies: Animals are tested in relation to clinical surveillance and import.Multiplying herds

The Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme: Each year, a number of lymph node samples andcarcass swabs are collected randomly from the sow population at slaughterhouse according to theslaughter volume. The sampling of lymph nodes is described in this chapter, the sampling of carcassswabs is described in the chapter on Salmonella in foodstuffs.

Other strategies: Animals are tested in relation to clinical surveillance and import.Fattening herds

The Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme: Each year, a number of lymph node samples andcarcass swabs are collected by slaughter and proportionally distributed according to the slaughterhouses’capacities. The sampling of lymph nodes is described in this chapter, while the sampling of carcass swabsis described in the chapter on Salmonella in foodstuffs.

Other strategies: Animals are tested in relation to clinical surveillance and import.Frequency of the sampling

Breeding herdsOnce a year

Fattening herds at slaughterhouse (herd based approach)Detection of an animal prevalence level of 0.1% by 95% confidence

Type of specimen takenBreeding herds

Faeces

Fattening herds at slaughterhouse (herd based approach)Lymph nodes

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Breeding herds

Faecal samples are taken.

Fattening herds at slaughterhouse (herd based approach)From each carcass at least five ileo-caecal lymph nodes are aseptically removed and pooled in a plasticbag. All samples are kept refrigerated during the period of sampling and sent to the laboratory the sameday.

Case definitionBreeding herds


E. Salmonella spp. in pigs

31Norway - 2010


Multiplying herdsA positive sample is a sample from which Salmonella has been isolated.

Fattening herds at farmA positive sample is a sample from which Salmonella has been isolated.

Fattening herds at slaughterhouse (herd based approach)A positive sample is a sample from which Salmonella has been isolated.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedBreeding herds


Multiplying herdsBacteriological method: ISO 6579:2002

Fattening herds at farmBacteriological method: ISO 6579:2002

Fattening herds at slaughterhouse (herd based approach)Bacteriological method: NMKL No 71:1999

Vaccination policyBreeding herds


Multiplying herdsVaccination against Salmonella is prohibited in Norway.

Fattening herdsVaccination against Salmonella is prohibited in Norway.


Breeding herdsThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme is mandatory. Detection of Salmonella, irrespective ofserovar, has been notifiable since 1965.

Multiplying herdsSee "breeding herds".

Fattening herdsSee "breeding herds".

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesWhenever Salmonella is detected, the competent authorities must be notified without delay. Actions will betaken to identify and eliminate the source of the contamination in order to prevent further spread. Also,slaughterhouses and food production facilities receiving animals or animal products from an infectedanimal holding must be informed. Stringent restrictions including cleaning and disinfection, control ofanimal movement and control of person admission will be imposed on an infected animal holding.

Infected animals must be isolated from other animals. Animals are not allowed to be sent to slaughterwithout permission from the Food Safety Authority and if sent to slaughter, the slaughterhouse must be

32Norway - 2010


notified so that sanitation slaughtering can be conducted.

Whenever Salmonella is detected, epidemiological investigations also including the feed suppliers will beinitiated in order to identify and eliminate the source of infection. There will be intensified sampling, also onfarms that have had contact with the infected holding. Restrictions will be lifted when all animals havebeen tested with a negative test result in two consecutive samplings with a minimum interval of 30 days.Following lifting of the restrictions, retesting will be conducted after approx. six months.


Results of the investigationIn 2010, lymph node samples from a total of 2226 animals were tested in the Norwegian SalmonellaControl Programme. One sample was positive for S. Bovismorbificans. None of the 117 herds tested withfaecal samples (2090 samples in total) were positive.

In addition, 628 samples from 61 different herds were investigated, mainly due to follow up of positivefindings. Three herds were positive (S. Typhimurium (2), S. Bovismorbificans (1)). The herd positive for S.Bovismorbificans was the same as the herd found positive for S. Bovismorbificans in the NorwegianSalmonella Control Programme. This herd also had cattle positive for S. Bovismorbificans. The two herdswith S. Typhimurium had contact with each other.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe Norwegian Salmonella Control Programmes document that Norwegian food producing animals arevirtually free from Salmonella. The surveillance data indicate that the overall prevalence is below 0.1%.

33Norway - 2010



Described here is Salmonella in sheep and goats and other animal species than food producing animals,such as pets, zoo animals, reptiles and wild life.

Sampling is done in relation to clinical surveillance and import.Case definition

Animals at farmA positive animal is an animal from which Salmonella, irrespective of serovar, has been isolated.


Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesWhenever Salmonella is detected, the competent authorities must be notified without delay. Unless thefinding is in a wild animal, epidemiological investigations will be initiated in order to identify and eliminatethe source of infection.

Notification system in placeDetection of Salmonella, irrespective of serovar, has been notifiable since 1965.

Results of the investigationFor details - see table. In addition to the results presented above and in the tables, animals may havebeen sampled due to clinical problems, follow up or various projects. None of these samples have beenpositive.


A substantial proportion of the S. Typhimurium infections in humans are indigenous. This serovar,although not established among food animals in Norway, does occur in Norwegian wild birds andhedgehogs, and these two sources have been described to be the source for almost half of all indigenousS. Typhimurium cases. These two sources probably also constitutes a risk for food producing animals.Also, reptiles kept as pets pose a risk for transmission to humans.

F. Salmonella spp. in animal

34Norway - 2010



The Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme established pursuant fo Article 5 of Regulation (EC)2160/2003 and approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) (364/07/COL) also includes allbreeder flocks of ducks, geese, turkeys and guinea fowl. Sampling takes place at the initiative of the foodbusiness operator and by the Competent Authority according to Regulation (EC) 1003/2005 (in forcethroughout 2010).Other strategies: Animals are tested in relation to clinical surveillance and import. Norway is also grantedadditional guaranties according to Commission decision 2003/644/EC.

Frequency of the samplingAnimals at farm

See the description of the programme in Gallus gallus

Type of specimen takenAnimals at farm

See the description of the programme in Gallus gallus


See the description of the programme in Gallus gallus.

Animals at slaughter (herd based approach)See the description of the programme in Gallus gallus.



Animals at slaughter (herd based approach)A positive flock is a flock from which Salmonella (irrespective of serovar) has been isolated from at leastone sample.





The Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme is mandatory. Detection of Salmonella, irrespective ofserovar, has been notifiable since 1965.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesWhenever Salmonella is detected, the competent authorities must be notified without delay. Also,slaughterhouses and food production facilities receiving animals or animal products from an infected

G. Salmonella spp. in animal - Poultry (Ducks, Geese and Turkeys (not Gallus gallus))

35Norway - 2010


animal holding must be informed. Stringent restrictions including cleaning and disinfection, control ofanimal movement and control of person admission will be imposed on an infected animal holding. Infectedanimals must be isolated from other animals. Whenever Salmonella is detected, epidemiologicalinvestigations also including the feed suppliers will be initiated in order to identify and eliminate the sourceof infection. If Salmonella is detected, the whole flock will be destroyed or subjected to sanitationslaughter. Eggs from hatcheries will be destroyed or pasteurised. If Salmonella is detected in chicks, allchicks from the same hatchery machine must be destroyed. Farms that have received infected chicks willbe considered infected and restrictions will be imposed on these farms as well.

Restrictions will be lifted when infected rooms have been cleaned and disinfected, bacteriological testingfollowing cleaning and disinfection gives a negative test result, and the rooms have been empty for atleast 30 days.


Results of the investigationIn 2010, none of the Norwegian breeder flocks were positive. None of the production flocks were positive.

In addition to the Control Programme, samples have been taken in relation to clinical problems, follow upor various projects. None of these samples were positive for Salmonella. For details, see table.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe duck, geese, turkey and guinea fowl populations in Norway are small. A few times, positivecommercial flocks have been found, the last time in 2000, when two turkey flocks were positive for S.Aberdeen and S. Typhimurium, respectively.

36Norway - 2010

37

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella in breeding flocks of Gallus gallus

14 NSCP Flock 14 0Gallus gallus (fowl) - parent breeding flocks for eggproduction line - during rearing period

20 NSCP Flock 20 0Gallus gallus (fowl) - parent breeding flocks for eggproduction line - adult

3 NSCP Flock 3 0Gallus gallus (fowl) - grandparent breeding flocks foregg production line - adult

91 NSCP Flock 91 0Gallus gallus (fowl) - parent breeding flocks forbroiler production line - during rearing period

136 NSCP Flock 136 0Gallus gallus (fowl) - parent breeding flocks forbroiler production line - adult

Number ofexisting flocks Source of

informationSampling unit Units tested


S. Enteritidis S. Hadar S. InfantisS.

Typhimurium S. Virchow S. 1,4,[5],12:i:-

Gallus gallus (fowl) - parent breeding flocks for eggproduction line - during rearing period

Gallus gallus (fowl) - parent breeding flocks for eggproduction line - adult

Gallus gallus (fowl) - grandparent breeding flocks foregg production line - adult

Gallus gallus (fowl) - parent breeding flocks forbroiler production line - during rearing period

Gallus gallus (fowl) - parent breeding flocks forbroiler production line - adult

Salmonellaspp.,

unspecified

38

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella in breeding flocks of Gallus gallus

39

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella in other birds

NVI Holding 2 1 1Quails

NVI Animal 21 0Birds - pet animals - Clinical investigations

NVI Animal 14 2 2Birds - wild - Clinical investigations


Sampling unit Units testedTotal unitspositive forSalmonella

S. EnteritidisS.


spp.,unspecified

S. Infantis

40

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella in other animals

NVI Herd 186 3 3Cattle (bovine animals)1)

NVI Animal 3 0Goats

NVI Herd 61 3 2 1Pigs2)

NVI Animal 103 18Sheep3)

NVI Animal 54 0Solipeds, domestic

NVI Animal 67 0Alpacas - farmed

NVI Animal 126 2Cats4)

NSCP Animal 1854 0Cattle (bovine animals) - at slaughterhouse -Surveillance - official controls - objective sampling(Lymph nodes)

NVI Animal 453 11 1 2 3 2Dogs5)

NVI Animal 14 0Pet animals, all (Small pets (rabbits, chinchillasetc.))

NSCP Animal 2226 1 1Pigs - at slaughterhouse - Surveillance - officialcontrols - objective sampling (Lymph nodes)

NSCP Herd 117 0Pigs - breeding animals - at farm - animal sample -faeces - Surveillance - official controls

NVI Animal 8 5 1Reptiles - pet animals (Including turtles)6)

NVI Animal 4 1Wild animals7)

NVI Animal 38 6Zoo animals, all8)


Sampling unit Units testedTotal unitspositive forSalmonella

S. EnteritidisS.

Typhimurium S. 1,4,[5],12:i:-

Salmonellaspp.,

unspecified

S.Bovismorbific

ans

S.Brandenburg S. Cotham

41

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010


Cattle (bovine animals)1)

Goats

Pigs2)

18Sheep3)

Solipeds, domestic

Alpacas - farmed

2Cats4)

Cattle (bovine animals) - at slaughterhouse -Surveillance - official controls - objective sampling(Lymph nodes)

1 1 1 1Dogs5)

Pet animals, all (Small pets (rabbits, chinchillasetc.))

Pigs - at slaughterhouse - Surveillance - officialcontrols - objective sampling (Lymph nodes)

Pigs - breeding animals - at farm - animal sample -faeces - Surveillance - official controls

2 1Reptiles - pet animals (Including turtles)6)

Wild animals7)

1 1 1 1Zoo animals, all8)

S. Dublin S. IIIb61:k:1,5,(7) S. Infantis S.

LivingstoneS.

Meleagridis S. Muenchen S. Nyeko S. ParatyphiB S. Putten

S.Schwarzengr

und

S.Senftenberg

42

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010


Comments:

Cattle (bovine animals)1)

Goats

Pigs2)

Sheep3)

Solipeds, domestic

Alpacas - farmed

Cats4)

Cattle (bovine animals) - at slaughterhouse -Surveillance - official controls - objective sampling(Lymph nodes)

Dogs5)

Pet animals, all (Small pets (rabbits, chinchillasetc.))

Pigs - at slaughterhouse - Surveillance - officialcontrols - objective sampling (Lymph nodes)

Pigs - breeding animals - at farm - animal sample -faeces - Surveillance - official controls

1 1 1Reptiles - pet animals (Including turtles)6)

1Wild animals7)

1 1 1Zoo animals, all8)

S. Tennessee S. Wedding S. YoffS. enterica

subsp.arizonae

S. entericasubsp.

diarizonae

S. entericasubsp.

houtenae

S. entericasubsp. indica

43

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010


Comments:1) A total of 1266 samples2) A total of 628 samples.3) A total of 50 sampled herds4) The two positive animals were two aborted fetuses from the same household5) One dog had double infection with S. Brandenburg and S. Enteritidis.6) Excluding reptiles from zoos. One animal had triple infection with S. Tennessee + S. Cotham + S. arizonae 44:z4z32:-.7) S. enterica subsp. diarizonae 38 : k : z35 found in a Racoon Dog.8) Animals from 8 zoos and similar holdings. One animal had double infction with S. Schwarzengrund and S. Yoff.

Footnote:NSCP = Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme.

The samples reported from NVI (Norwegian Veterinary Institute) include clinical investigations, follow up of positive findings, import controls and other reasons for sampling. Animal species where the number of sampleswere <10 and all samples were negative are not reported.

Footnote:

44

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella in other poultry

146 NSCP Flock 146 0Gallus gallus (fowl) - laying hens - during rearingperiod

981 NSCP Flock 981 0Gallus gallus (fowl) - laying hens - adult - at farm -Control and eradication programmes - official andindustry sampling

981 NSCP Flock 885 0Gallus gallus (fowl) - laying hens - adult - at farm -Control and eradication programmes - sampling byindustry

981 NSCP Flock 197 0Gallus gallus (fowl) - laying hens - adult - at farm -Control and eradication programmes - officialsampling - objective sampling

981 NSCP Flock 0 0Gallus gallus (fowl) - laying hens - adult - at farm -Control and eradication programmes - officialsampling - suspect sampling

4549 NSCP Flock 4549 2 1 1Gallus gallus (fowl) - broilers - before slaughter - atfarm - Control and eradication programmes - officialand industry sampling

15 NSCP Flock 15 0Turkeys - breeding flocks, unspecified - adult - atfarm - Control and eradication programmes - officialand industry sampling

NSCP Slaughterbatch 385 0

Turkeys - fattening flocks - before slaughter - at farm- Control and eradication programmes - official andindustry sampling

4 NSCP Flock 4 0Ducks - breeding flocks, unspecified1)

73 NSCP Slaughterbatch 73 0Ducks - meat production flocks




S. EnteritidisS.


Salmonellaspp.,

unspecified

S.Brandenburg S.

Senftenberg

45

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella in other poultry

Comments:1) including rearing flocks

3 NSCP Slaughterbatch 3 0Geese - meat production flocks

NVI Flock 4 0Ducks - unspecified - Clinical investigations

NVI Holding 28 2 1 1Gallus gallus (fowl) - unspecified - Clinicalinvestigations (Including follow up sampling ofpositive findings)

NVI Flock 1 0Geese - unspecified - Clinical investigations

NVI Flock 12 0Turkeys - unspecified - Clinical investigations




S. EnteritidisS.


Salmonellaspp.,

unspecified

S.Brandenburg S.

Senftenberg

The type of flock (breeding, production) for clinical investigations are unknown and number of existing flocks are therefore not given.

NSCP = Norwegian Salmonella Control Programme.

The two positive holdings were the same as the holdings with positive flocks in the NSCP.

Footnote:


2.1.5 Salmonella in feedingstuffs

History of the disease and/or infection in the countryNorway has for many years performed an extensive surveillance of feedingstuffs and imposed stringentmeasures in case of positive findings. The import of animal feedingstuffs has also been restricted for manyyears. The result is that the feedingstuffs given to Norwegian livestock for many years have virtually beenfree from Salmonella.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionExtensive surveillance systems for Salmonella in regard to feedingstuffs are established in order toprevent animals from being exposed to contaminated feed. Feedingstuffs for both terrestrial animals andfish are covered by surveillance programmes. The surveillance programmes document a low prevalenceof Salmonella in domestically produced animal compound feedingstuffs. However, data from processcontrol, including environmental sampling, indicates that there are certain serovars that sometimescontaminate production facilities, especially those producing fish feed.


The favourable Salmonella situation in animals and humans in Norway is partly dependent upon theefficient control of animal feedingstuffs. The number of animals infected through feedingstuffs is probablyvery low, and this route of infection probably represents a negligible risk to humans.

Recent actions taken to control the zoonosesDetection of Salmonella is notifiable and the establishment must take immediate actions to prevent thedistribution of contaminated feed. Contaminated feed will either be destroyed, heat or acid treated.

In general, complete feedingstuffs and protein concentrates (supplementary feedingstuffs) intended forpoultry, pigs, and cattle are exposed to heat treatment of at least 81 degrees Celsius core temperatureand the production has to take place in a production line where all the other feedingstuffs are heat treated.According to the regulations for production of feedingstuffs, feed mills are required to have in place asystem to monitor the acceptability of the process including a sampling scheme for Salmonella consistingof minimum 3 samples every forthnight (all poultry feed mills and pig and cattle feed mills with a capacityabove 10,000 tons per year) or every fourth week (pig and cattle feed mills with a capacity below 10,000tons per year). Samples include raw materials and scrapings from control points. Establishmentspreparing feed for fur animals are required to analyse a minimum of one sample for Salmonella per month.The national production of meat and bone meal is subject to a continuous process control that includesanalyses for Salmonella. Through an official surveillance programme random samples of feedingstuffs forterrestrial animals are collected and analysed for the presence of Salmonella.

Establishments producing fish feed are required to establish and maintain an internal (process) controlbased on the HACCP-system according to the regulation for fish feed. A minimum of four samples per 14days should be examined with respect to Salmonella. Through an official surveillance programmedescribed in the regulation for feedingstuffs for fish, random samples of feedingstuffs for fish are collectedat the establishments and analysed for the presence of Salmonella.

Establishments producing fish meal or fish oil are required to establish and maintain an internal (process)control based on the HACCP-system according to the regulation for fish meal and fish oil. A minimum of

A. Salmonella spp. in feed

46Norway - 2010


one sample per 50 tons must be tested for the presence of Salmonella.

Imported feed materials of vegetable origin must be subjected to control for Salmonella before distributionor use. The number of samples depends on the size of the load and whether the feedingstuffs areclassified as high-risk (soy beans, maize, cotton seed, etc.) or low-risk materials. Imported feed of animalorigin, predominantly pet feed, is controlled at one of the Border Inspection Posts according to CouncilDirectives 97/78/EEC and 89/662/EEC. Dog treats made from hides that are imported from third countriesmust be accompanied with a certificate that documents that the lot has been controlled for Salmonella. Atthe Border Inspection Posts, sampling is done according to a specific scheme. Feed materials, includingfish meal, imported from third countries must be subjected to control for Salmonella according to aspecified plan before distribution or use. A minimum of one sample per 50 tons must be tested for thepresence of Salmonella.

In addition to the surveillance run by the government or the industry itself, feedingstuffs are also subjectedto analyses for Salmonella in relation to epidemiological investigations and specific surveys and studies.

47Norway - 2010

48

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella in compound feedingstuffs

NFSA Batch 25 g 34 0Compound feedingstuffs for pigs - final product1)

NFSA Batch 25 g 1050 37 31 5 1Compound feedingstuffs for fish - Monitoring -industry sampling - objective sampling

NFSA Single 100 g 372 1 1Compound feedingstuffs for fish - Monitoring -industry sampling - objective sampling (singlesamples)

NFSA Batch 25 g 321 153 153Compound feedingstuffs for fish - Monitoring -industry sampling - selective sampling

NFSA Single 100 g 55 0Compound feedingstuffs for fish - Monitoring -industry sampling - selective sampling (Singlesamples)

NFSA Single swab - 100 g 2088 52 2 48 2

Compound feedingstuffs for fish - process control -at feed mill - Monitoring - industry sampling -objective sampling (including samples from theenvironment)

NFSA Single 10 - 100 g 286 27 24 3

Compound feedingstuffs for fish - process control -at feed mill - Monitoring - industry sampling -selective sampling (including samples from theenvironment)

NFSA Batch 500 g 381 0Compound feedingstuffs for fur animal - Monitoring -official sampling - objective sampling

NFSA Batch 25 g 1 0Compound feedingstuffs for horses - Monitoring -official sampling - objective sampling

NFSA Batch 25 g 44 0Compound feedingstuffs for poultry (non specified) -Monitoring - official sampling - objective sampling




S. EnteritidisS.


spp.,unspecified

S. Lexington S. Mbandaka

49

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella in compound feedingstuffs

Comments:1) Official sampling, objective sampling

NFSA Batch 25 g 457 0Compound feedingstuffs, not specified - Monitoring -industry sampling - objective sampling (cattle, swine,poultry)

NFSA Single 25 - 100 g 9361 44 2 1 40 1

Compound feedingstuffs, not specified - processcontrol - at feed mill - Monitoring - industry sampling- objective sampling (feed mills producing feed forland animals, including samples from theenvironment and transport vehicles)

NFSA Single 100 g 126 0

Compound feedingstuffs, not specified - processcontrol - at feed mill - Monitoring - industry sampling- selective sampling (feed mills producing feed forland animals, including samples from theenvironment and transport vehicles)

NFSA Batch 25 g 149 0

Compound feedingstuffs, not specified - processcontrol - at feed mill - Monitoring - official sampling -objective sampling (feed mills producing feed forland animals, including samples from theenvironment and transport vehicles)




S. EnteritidisS.


spp.,unspecified

S. Lexington S. Mbandaka

50

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella in feed material of animal origin

Comments:1) Industry sampling - objective sampling2) Industry sampling - objective sampling

NFSA Batch 25 g 277 4 4Feed material of land animal origin - bone meal1)

NFSA Batch 100 g 1 0Feed material of marine animal origin - fish oil2)

NFSA Single 25 g 330 1 1Feed material of land animal origin - bone meal - atprocessing plant - environmental sample -Monitoring - industry sampling

NFSA Batch 100 g 3 0Feed material of marine animal origin - fish meal -Monitoring - industry sampling (Norwegian origin)

NFSA Batch 25 - 100 g 93 3 2 1Feed material of marine animal origin - fish meal -Monitoring - industry sampling (imported)




S. EnteritidisS.


spp.,unspecified

S. Havana S. Ohio S.Senftenberg

51

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella in other feed matter

NFSA Single 25 g 24 0Feed material of cereal grain origin - barley derived 1)

NFSA Batch 25 g 336 0Feed material of cereal grain origin - maize - derived 2)

NFSA Batch 25 - 100 g 461 0Feed material of cereal grain origin - wheat derived 3)

NFSA Batch 25 g 268 1 1Feed material of oil seed or fruit origin - rape seedderived

4)

NFSA Batch 25 g 304 0Feed material of oil seed or fruit origin - soya (bean)derived

5)

NFSA Batch 25 - 100 g 36 0Feed material of oil seed or fruit origin - sunflowerseed derived

6)

NFSA Batch 25 g 54 0Other feed material - legume seeds and similarproducts

7)

NFSA Single 25 g 6 0Other feed material - other seeds and fruits8)

NFSA Single 25 g 8 0Other feed material - tubers, roots and similarproducts

9)

NFSA Single 25 g 11 0Feed material of cereal grain origin - oat derived10)

NFSA Batch 336 59 40 14 5

Feed material of oil seed or fruit origin - soya (bean)derived - at processing plant - Surveillance - HACCPand own checks (Imported material)

11)




S. EnteritidisS.


spp.,unspecified

S. Mbandaka S.Senftenberg

52

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010


Comments:1) Industry sampling, imported material2) Industry sampling, imported material3) Industry sampling, imported material4) Industry sampling, imported material5) Industry sampling, imported material6) industry sampling, imported material7) Industry sampling, Norwegian origin8) Industry sampling, imported material

NFSA Batch 60 - 120 g 2496 0

Feed material of oil seed or fruit origin - soya (bean)derived - at processing plant - domestic production -Monitoring - industry sampling - objective sampling

12)

NFSA Batch 200 g 799 3 3

Feed material of oil seed or fruit origin - soya (bean)derived - at processing plant - environmental sample- Surveillance - HACCP and own checks (Cleanside)

NFSA Batch swab - 200 g 246 19 10 8 1

Feed material of oil seed or fruit origin - soya (bean)derived - at processing plant - environmental sample- Surveillance - HACCP and own checks (uncleanside, inside and outside)

13)

NFSA Batch 25 g 2 0Other feed material - Monitoring - official sampling




S. EnteritidisS.


spp.,unspecified

S. Mbandaka S.Senftenberg

53

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010


Comments:9) Industry sampling, imported material

10) Industry sampling, imported material11) Dust from boat shipments, 14 ships in total (24 single samples (approx 5 g) from each ship pooled). The 40 isolates in column "Salmonella unspecified"

consists of 12 different serovars.12) Samples of Norwegian origin taken from boats, trucks and production facilities13) The 10 isolates in column "salmonella unspecified" consists of 5 different serovars

Industry sampling contains data from both fish and land animal feed industry

Footnote:

54

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

2.1.6 Salmonella serovars and phagetype distributionThe methods of collecting, isolating and testing of the Salmonella isolates are describedin the chapters above respectively for each animal species, foodstuffs and humans. Theserotype and phagetype distributions can be used to investigate the sources of theSalmonella infections in humans. Findings of same serovars and phagetypes in humancases and in foodstuffs or animals may indicate that the food category or animal speciesin question serves as a source of human infections. However as information is notavailable from all potential sources of infections, conclusions have to be drawn withcaution.

Table Salmonella serovars in animals

3 1S. Bovismorbificans

1S. Brandenburg

1S. Senftenberg

1 1S. Typhimurium

Cattle (bovine animals) Pigs Gallus gallus (fowl) Otherpoultry

Controlprogram

Monitoring Clinical Surveillance Controlprogram



3 2 1 2

Sources of isolates

Number of isolates in the laboratory

Number of isolates serotyped

Serovar

Number of isolates per serovar

3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0

55

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Salmonella serovars in animals

S. Bovismorbificans

S. Brandenburg

S. Senftenberg

S. Typhimurium

Other poultry

Monitoring Clinical SurveillanceSources of isolates

Number of isolates in the laboratory

Number of isolates serotyped

Serovar

Number of isolates per serovar

0 0 0


2.1.7 Antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella isolates

Sampling strategy used in monitoringFrequency of the sampling

All Salmonella found in production animals, irrespective if they are found in the Norwegian SalmonellaControl Programmes or in connection with clinical problems, surveys or other investigations, are includedin the resistance monitoring (only one isolate per herd). Salmonella isolated from other animals may besusceptibility tested as well. Exceptions from the rules described above are that not all S. diarizonae fromsheep or S. Typhimurium from wild birds and wild animals or Salmonella from reptiles, wild animals or zooanimals are tested every year.

Type of specimen takenSalmonella isolates collected through the Norwegian Salmonella Control programmes, which includethose animal species required by the Commission Decision No 2007/407/EC on the harmonisedmonitoring of antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella. Isolates from other samples taken vary depending onthe situation.

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)For description of the Norwegian Salmonella Control programmes, see the parts describing Salmonella inthe various animal species. Other sampling methods vary depending on the situation.

Procedures for the selection of isolates for antimicrobial testingOne isolate per herd is selected for antimicrobial testing.

Methods used for collecting dataSalmonella is isolated at various laboratories and sent to the Norwegian Veterinary Institute in Oslo for thetesting of antimicrobial susceptibility.

Laboratory methodology used for identification of the microbial isolatesNormally, ISO 6579:2002 or NMKL No 71:1999 are used for isolation of Salmonella. However, isolatesmay have been obtained by other methods as well.

Laboratory used for detection for resistanceAntimicrobials included in monitoring

The VetMIC microdilution method (Dept. of Antibiotics, National Veterinary Institute, Sweden) is used forthe susceptibility testing of all isolates. The antimicrobials included are listed in the tables.

Cut-off values used in testingFor interpretation of results epidemiological cut-off values recommended by EFSA were applied.


The resistance testing of Salmonella isolated from animals is a part of the Norwegian monitoringprogramme for antimicrobial resistance in feed, food and animals - NORM-VET.

A. Antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella spp. in animal

56Norway - 2010

57

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Salmonella in Cattle (bovine animals)

3 0Amphenicols - Chloramphenicol

3 0Fluoroquinolones - Ciprofloxacin

3 0Quinolones - Nalidixic acid

3 0Trimethoprim

3 0Aminoglycosides - Streptomycin

3 0Aminoglycosides - Gentamicin

3 0Penicillins - Ampicillin

3 0Tetracyclines - Tetracycline

3 3Fully sensitive

S. Enteritidis S. TyphimuriumSalmonella spp. S.Bovismorbifican

s

yes

3

Antimicrobials:

Isolates out of a monitoringprogram (yes/no)

Number of isolates availablein the laboratory

Salmonella

N n N n N n N n

58

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Salmonella in Pigs

2 0 1 0Amphenicols - Chloramphenicol

2 0 1 0Fluoroquinolones - Ciprofloxacin

2 0 1 0Quinolones - Nalidixic acid

2 2 1 0Trimethoprim

2 2 1 0Aminoglycosides - Streptomycin

2 0 1 0Aminoglycosides - Gentamicin

2 1 1 0Penicillins - Ampicillin

2 1 1 0Tetracyclines - Tetracycline

2 0Fully sensitive

2 0Resistant to 1 antimicrobial

2 1Resistant to 2 antimicrobials



S. Enteritidis S. TyphimuriumSalmonella spp. S.Bovismorbifican

s

yes yes

2 1

Antimicrobials:



Salmonella

N n N n N n N n

59

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Salmonella in Gallus gallus (fowl)


1 0 1 0Fluoroquinolones - Ciprofloxacin


1 0 1 0Trimethoprim





1 1 1 1Fully sensitive

S. Enteritidis S. TyphimuriumSalmonella spp.S. Brandenburg S. Senftenberg

yes yes

1 1

Antimicrobials:



Salmonella

N n N n N n N n N n

60

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of S. Bovismorbificans in Cattle (bovine animals) - quantitative data [Dilution method]

16 3 0 2 1Amphenicols - Chloramphenicol

8 3 0 1 1 1Tetracyclines - Tetracycline

0.06 3 0 2 1Fluoroquinolones - Ciprofloxacin

16 3 0 2 1Quinolones - Nalidixic acid

2 3 0 2 1Trimethoprim



4 3 0 2 1Penicillins - Ampicillin

0.5 3 0 2 1Cephalosporins - Cefotaxim

256 3 0 2 1Sulphonamides


yes

3

Antimicrobials:



S. Bovismorbificans

Cut-offvalue N n <=0.008 0.015 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 >2048 lowest highest

Concentration (µg/ml), number of isolates with a concentration of inhibition equal to

61

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of S. Bovismorbificans in Pigs - quantitative data [Dilution method]



0.06 1 0 1Fluoroquinolones - Ciprofloxacin


2 1 0 1Trimethoprim




0.5 1 0 1Cephalosporins - Cefotaxim

256 1 0 1Sulphonamides

Pigs

yes

1

Antimicrobials:



S. Bovismorbificans



62

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of S. Typhimurium in Pigs - quantitative data [Dilution method]


8 2 1 1 1Tetracyclines - Tetracycline

0.06 2 0 1 1Fluoroquinolones - Ciprofloxacin

16 2 0 1 1Quinolones - Nalidixic acid

2 2 2 2Trimethoprim

32 2 2 1 1Aminoglycosides - Streptomycin


4 2 1 1 1Penicillins - Ampicillin

0.5 2 0 1 1Cephalosporins - Cefotaxim


Pigs

yes

2

Antimicrobials:



S. Typhimurium



63

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of S. Senftenberg in Gallus gallus (fowl) - broilers - quantitative data [Dilution method]





2 1 0 1Trimethoprim






Gallus gallus (fowl) - broilers

yes

1

Antimicrobials:



S. Senftenberg



64

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of S. Brandenburg in Gallus gallus (fowl) - broilers - quantitative data [Dilution method]





2 1 0 1Trimethoprim






Gallus gallus (fowl) - broilers

yes

1

Antimicrobials:



S. Brandenburg



65

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance testing of Salmonella in Animals

Standard methods used for testing

NCCLS/CLSI

16Amphenicols Chloramphenicol

8Tetracyclines Tetracycline

0.06Fluoroquinolones Ciprofloxacin

16Quinolones Nalidixic acid

2Trimethoprim Trimethoprim

256Sulphonamides Sulphonamides

32Streptomycin

2

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin

0.5Cephalosporins Cefotaxim

4Penicillins Ampicillin

Concentration (microg/ml) Zone diameter (mm)

Standard Resistant > Resistant <=

Test Method Used

Broth dilution

66

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance testing of Salmonella in Feed








32Streptomycin

2

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin





Test Method Used

67

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance testing of Salmonella in Food








32Streptomycin

2

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin





Test Method Used


2.2 CAMPYLOBACTERIOSIS


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryNorwegian studies have shown that many species of wild birds, especially crows and seagulls, arefrequent carriers of thermophilic Campylobacter spp. Thermophilic Campylobacter spp. have also beenisolated from poultry, dogs, cats, pigs, sheep, cattle, and flies, and sporadically from wild mammals.Before 2001, when the surveillance programme in broilers was implemented, the prevalence ofthermophilic Campylobacter spp. in Norwegian broiler flocks had been studied twice. In 1990, 18% of theflocks tested were infected, whereas this proportion in 1997-1998 had decreased to 4%. This reductionwas attributed to an increased focus on the importance of biosecurity.

The Action Plan against Campylobacter in broilers that started in 2001 has shown that the yearlyincidence of broiler flocks being positive for Campylobacter has varied between 3.3% and 6.3% in theyears 2002-2007. The data from 2008 - 2010 are not directly comparable to previous years because in2008 the sampling was redused to sampling prior to slaughter only and in 2009 the surveillance wasaltered from full year surveillance to the period between 1st May to the end of October when the incidenceis highest. estimated full year prevalence of positive flocks in 2008 was probably approximately the sameas in 2007 and the results from 2009 and 2010 probably gradually improving.

The number of flocks going positive out on the market has been reduced from 127 in 2002 to 58 in2007.The number of positive flocks out on the market was probably similar to 2007 in 2008 and slightlyhigher in 2009 and 2010.

In 1998, campylobacteriosis for the first time surpassed salmonellosis as the most frequently reportedbacterial cause of acute human gastroenteritis in Norway, and since then the reported incidence ofcampylobacteriosis has been above that of salmonellosis. Since the beginning of the 1990s and until itpeaked in 2001, there was a major increase in the incidence of campylobacteriosis in Norway, both indomestic and imported cases. Usually, 50-60% of the cases are imported.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe reported human incidence in 2010 was slightly lower than the incidence reported in 2009. The data onprevalence in broiler flocks in 2010 were not as complete as the date from the period 2001 – 2007, but weassume that there is no major change in the prevalence. We also assume that in 2010, as in earlier years,the majority of the positive flocks were detected before slaughter, and were therefore treated (i.e. frozen orheat treated) before they went on the market. The use of untreated water is considered an importantsource of campylobacteriosis in Norway.


The poultry production and poultry consumption has increased during the last years. Even if theNorwegian action plan against Campylobacter in broilers have largely reduced the number ofCampylobacter positive broiler carcasses entering the market, there are still positive broiler carcasses onthe market. In addition, other food products may also be positive for Campylobacter. An important sourceof human campylobacteriosis in Norway is the use of untreated water in private homes and cottages and

A. Thermophilic Campylobacter general evaluation

68Norway - 2010


during camping and hiking.

Recent actions taken to control the zoonosesThe implementation of the Norwegian action plan against Campylobacter in broilers in 2001 was a directresponse from the authorities, scientific institutions and the industry to the major increase in humancampylobacteriosis that was seen during the late 1990s and up to 2001.

69Norway - 2010


2.2.2 Campylobacteriosis in humans


Case definitionA case from which Campylobacter spp. has been isolated or a clinical compatible case with anepidemiological link to a culture confirmed case.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedBacteriology (isolation of Campylobacter species from faecal samples) followed by voluntary confirmation(species identification and biotyping) at the National Reference Laboratory. Due to the methods applied,C. lari and C. upsaliensis are probably underdiagnosed.


History of the disease and/or infection in the countrySince the beginning of the 1990s and until it peaked in 2001, there was a significant increase in theincidence of campylobacteriosis in Norway. From 1997 to 2001, the incidence increased by ~145%. In1998, campylobacteriosis for the first time surpassed salmonellosis as the most frequently reportedbacterial cause of acute gastroenteritis in Norway, and since then the reported incidence ofcampylobacteriosis has been above that of salmonellosis. Usually, 50-60% of the cases are imported. Theincreased incidences observed throughout the 1990s and until 2001 were due to a rising number of bothdomestic and imported cases. The number of cases, both domestic and imported declined in 2002 andwas stable during the period from 2002 to 2004. In 2005, the number of cases increased again and thenumber of domestic and imported cases were for the first time almost the same. In 2006 the number ofimported cases were stable and the number of domestic cases decreased compared to 2005. Also in2007, the incidence of imported cases raised compared to the domestic cases. The number of importedcases decreased again in 2009 and the number of domestic cases increased to the same level as in 2001and 2005. Most cases are sporadic. A case control study conducted in Norway during 1999-2000identified consumption of untreated drinking water, consumption of poultry meat purchased fresh,consumption of barbecued meat, and professional contact with animals as significant risk factors in regardto campylobacteriosis. Daily contact with dogs/cats was identified as a risk factor in case control studiesconducted during the early 1990s, but was not identified as a risk factor in the 1999-2000 study. Studiesindicate that the vast majority (~95%) of reported cases are due to C. jejuni, and that C. coli is the causeof most of the remaining cases.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, a total of 2673 cases (incidence rate 54.3 per 100 000) were reported of which 1371 (51%) wereknown to be imported, 998 (37%) were domestic and 304 (11%) had an unknown place of infection.

A. Thermophilic Campylobacter in humans

70Norway - 2010


Altogether, five smaller foodborne outbreaks of campylobacteriosis were registered. No deaths due tocampylobacteriosis were reported.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe number of reported domestic cases decreased in 2010 compared to 2009. The incidence of domestichuman campylobacteriosis has been relatively stable during the last five years. As the overall occurrenceof positive broiler flocks is low, there must be other important sources to human campylobacteriosis apartfrom poultry products in Norway, untreated drinking water probably being the most important one.

Relevance as zoonotic diseaseCampylobacter is the most frequently reported cause of bacterial gastroenteritis in Norway. Every year,approx. half of the reported cases have acquired the infection in Norway.

Additional informationPatients whose work represents a risk for spread of the disease, e.g., in food production and health care,are advised to stay away from such work while they are having symptoms. It is recommended that forthese patients two consecutive faecal samples examined after the symptoms have disappeared should benegative before returning to work.

71Norway - 2010


2.2.3 Campylobacter in foodstuffs


At slaughterhouse and cutting plantSee chapter on Campylobacter in Gallus gallus.


See chapter on Campylobacter in Gallus gallus.


See chapter on Campylobacter in Gallus gallus.

Preventive measures in placeIn the surveillance programme, the broiler flocks found positive before slaughter are subjected to freezingfor at least 3 weeks or heat treatment.


The Norwegian action plan against Campylobacter in broilers is a surveillance programme agreed upon bythe Norwegian Food Safety Authority, scientific institutions and the poultry industry.

Recent actions taken to control the zoonosesThe establishment of the Norwegian action plan against Campylobacter in broilers was a direct responseto the major increase in the incidence of human campylobacteriosis during the 1990s.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesSee chapter on Campylobacter in Gallus gallus.

Notification system in placeAll findings in the Norwegian action plan against Campylobacter in broilers are reported and published assummary reports.

Results of the investigationThe results from the Norwegian action plan against Campylobacter in broilers are presented in the chapteron Campylobacter in Gallus gallus.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe Norwegian campylobacteriosis situation is a concern for the authorities. The establishment of theNorwegian action plan against Campylobacter sp. in broilers in 2001 was a response to the urgentsituation. This action plan has since it was established and through 2010 prevented millions ofCampylobacter positive broiler carcasses from entering the market raw.

A. Thermophilic Campylobacter in Broiler meat and products thereof

72Norway - 2010


2.2.4 Campylobacter in animals


A surveillance programme in broilers was implemented in May 2001 (part of the Norwegian action planagainst Campylobacter in broilers).

Frequency of the samplingBefore slaughter at farm

Between 1 May and 31 October, which corresponds with the high season for Campylobacter positiveflocks, every flock is sampled.

At slaughterFlocks where the result from the pre slaughter sample are lacking at the time of slaughter are sampled bystaff at the Norwegian Food Safety Authority.

Type of specimen takenBefore slaughter at farm

Faeces

At slaughterCaecum

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Before slaughter at farm

10 swabs from fresh faecal droppings are taken by the owner maximum four days before slaughter. Theyare transported dry as one pooled sample to the laboratory.

At slaughter10 caecae are sampled at the slaughter line. The 10 samples are pooled to one at the laboratory.

Case definitionBefore slaughter at farm

A flock where Campylobacter spp. is found.

At slaughterA slaughter batch where Campylobacter spp. is found.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedBefore slaughter at farm

Real time PCR.

At slaughterBacteriological method: ISO 10272:2006 (parts 1-3)

Vaccination policyThere is no vaccination against Campylobacter in Norway.

A. Thermophilic Campylobacter in Gallus gallus

73Norway - 2010


Other preventive measures than vaccination in placeFarms producing Campylobacter positive flocks are subject to follow-up visits from the advisors in theindustry and veterinary supervisors from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority to assist in implementingmeasures preventing further flocks to be infected with Campylobacter.


The Norwegian action plan against Campylobacter in broilers is a surveillance programme agreed upon bythe Norwegian Food Safety Authority, scientific institutions and the poultry industry. The surveillanceprogramme is compulsory.

Recent actions taken to control the zoonosesThe establishment of the Norwegian action plan against Campylobacter in broilers was a direct responseto the major increase in the incidence of human campylobacteriosis during the 1990s.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesCarcasses from flocks that are positive for thermophilic Campylobacter sp. based upon the pre-slaughtersampling are either subjected to heat-treatment or frozen for a minimum of three weeks.

The poultry industry uses data from the surveillance programme as an incentive for improving the hygienicconditions on broiler farms.

Notification system in placeAll positive flocks in the surveillance programme are reported to the authorities.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, in the period 1 May – 31 October, a total of 2170 samples (representing approx 2170 flocks, andcovering virtually all slaughtered flocks in Norway in that period) were taken approximately four daysbefore slaughter. A total of 110 samples (5.1%) were positive for Campylobacter spp. In addition - onesample (negative) was taken at slaughter due to lack of results from the pre-slaughter sample.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe poultry production has increased in Norway during the last years. The yearly prevalence of flocksbeing positive for Campylobacter from 2002 to 2007 was between 3.3 and 6.3%, 4.9%, 3.3%, 3.6%, 4.9%and 5.7%, respectively. The results from 2008 - 2010 are not directly comparable to previous years, butthe prevalence was probably approximately the same in 2008 as in 2007 and gradually decreasing in2009 and 2010.


The overall occurrence of positive broiler flocks is low, but there is a large seasonal variation with a peakduring the summer and autumn, and the surveillance programme is therefore covering that period of theyear. Even though approximately 75% of the positive flocks are discovered before slaughter, and therebysubject to compulsory freezing or heat treatment, the number of Campylobacter positive broiler carcasseson the market during the summer can be considerable.

74Norway - 2010

75

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Campylobacter in animals

NVI Animal 97 9 3 4 2Cats

NVI Animal 386 122 2 17 94 9Dogs

NACB Flock 2170 110 110Gallus gallus (fowl) - broilers - at farm

NVI Animal 16 6 5 1Sheep

NVI Animal 121 26 1 17 8Cattle (bovine animals) - unspecified


Sampling unit Units tested

Total unitspositive for

Campylobacter

C. coli C. jejuni C. lari C. upsaliensis

ThermophilicCampylobact

er spp.,unspecified

NACB = = Norwegian Action plan against Campylobacter in Broilers. Only covering the peak season 1 May – 31 October. There is no data available on the Campylobacter species because the method used is a Realtime PCR method where no isolates are obtained.

NVI = Norwegian Veterinary Institute: Diagnostic samples.

Footnote:


2.2.5 Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter isolates


Samples from healthy animals included in various surveys were investigated for occurrence ofCampylobacter spp. One isolate per positive farm was included for susceptibility testing.

Type of specimen takenFaecal samples collected at farm.

Procedures for the selection of isolates for antimicrobial testingOne isolate of Campylobacter jejuni from each positive holding was selected for antimicrobial testing.

Methods used for collecting dataStrains were isolated and tested for the antimicrobial susceptibility at the Norwegian Veterinary Institute inOslo.

Laboratory methodology used for identification of the microbial isolatesNMKL No 119 without enrichment.


The VetMIC microdilution method (Dept. of Antibiotics, National Veterinary Institute, Sweden) was usedfor the susceptibility testing of all isolates. The antimicrobials included are listed in the table.

Cut-off values used in testingEpidemiological cut-off values recommended by EUCAST were used.

Results of the investigationThe qualitative data are presented in the table. Quantitative data as well as data on breakpoints and rangeof testing are presented in the NORM/NORM-VET 2010 report.

A. Antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and coli in cattle

76Norway - 2010

77

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Campylobacter in Cattle (bovine animals)

11 1Fluoroquinolones - Ciprofloxacin



11 0Macrolides - Erythromycin


11 10Fully sensitive



Campylobacterspp.,

unspecifiedC. jejuni

yes

11

Antimicrobials:



Campylobacter

N n N n

78

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of C. jejuni in Cattle (bovine animals) - quantitative data [Dilution method]

2 11 0 2 7 2Tetracyclines - Tetracycline

1 11 1 1 6 3 1Fluoroquinolones - Ciprofloxacin

16 11 1 4 4 2 1Quinolones - Nalidixic acid

2 11 1 2 8 1Aminoglycosides - Streptomycin

1 11 0 6 5Aminoglycosides - Gentamicin

4 11 0 8 3Macrolides - Erythromycin


yes

11

Antimicrobials:



C. jejuni



79

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of C. coli in Animals



1Fluoroquinolones Ciprofloxacin

2Gentamicin

4

Aminoglycosides

Streptomycin

16Macrolides Erythromycin



Test Method Used

80

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of C. coli in Feed




2Gentamicin

4

Aminoglycosides

Streptomycin




Test Method Used

81

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of C. coli in Food




2Gentamicin

4

Aminoglycosides

Streptomycin




Test Method Used

82

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of C. jejuni in Animals


NCCLS/CLSI




1Gentamicin

2

Aminoglycosides

Streptomycin




Test Method Used

Broth dilution

83

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of C. jejuni in Feed




1Gentamicin

2

Aminoglycosides

Streptomycin




Test Method Used

84

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of C. jejuni in Food




1Gentamicin

2

Aminoglycosides

Streptomycin




Test Method Used


2.3 LISTERIOSIS


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryListeriosis is endemic in Norway with sporadic clinical cases in humans and animals, especially amongsheep.

Since 1982, the number of notified human cases has varied from 2-50. The incidence rate has varied from0.05-1.07 per 100 000. Most of the cases are sporadic, occurring in old people or persons with anunderlying disease. A few congenital cases have been reported.

An outbreak occurred in 1992 which involved six reported cases and was traced back to contaminated,vacuum packed cold cuts from a Norwegian meat producer. In 2005 a hospital outbreak occurred with 3cases, probably linked to cold cuts (the same strain of L. monocytogenes as isolated from the patientswas found on the slicing machine in the hospital kitchen). In 2007 an outbreak with 21 verified casesoccurred and was caused by contaminated soft cheese.

In a survey conducted in 1994, the prevalence of L. monocytogenes in samples of vacuum packed coldcuts and smoked salmon was 1.7% and 7.8%, respectively. The prevalence in smoked salmon was 3.4%in a survey conducted in 1996-1997. In 2002 4.3% of 703 samples of domestically produced fish and fishproducts, mainly unprocessed and smoked salmon, were positive for L. monocytogenes. In 2003, 8.6% of990 samples of smoked salmon taken at retail level were positive for L. monocytogenes. The level ofcontamination was less than 10 CFU/g in 53 samples, between 10 and 100 in 20 samples, between 100and 1000 in 10 samples and more than 1000 CFU/g in two samples. In a survey conducted in 1995involving ready-to-eat poultry products, the prevalence of L. monocytogenes was 0.4%.

A survey of domestically produced raw milk products conducted in 1999 revealed that one out of 282samples (0.4%) was positive for L. monocytogenes. A survey of raw bulk milk at Norwegian dairy farms,also conducted in 1999, did not detect any L. monocytogenes in 336 samples from cattle bulk milk,whereas four of 100 samples from goat bulk milk were positive for L. monocytogenes. This illustrates thatproducts made of raw milk might be risk products with regard to L. monocytogenes.

Fermented trout is a traditional food product in Norway that is consumed without heat treatment. Studieshave shown that fermented trout frequently is contaminated with L. monocytogenes, sometimes in highconcentrations (up to 2000 CFU per gram). Former guidelines issued by the Food Safety Authorityrecommended a maximum level of 1000 CFU per gram for this particular product combined withinformation about risk products to vulnerable consumers. Recent studies have shown that it is possible toproduce fermented trout without L. monocytogenes if hygienic precautionary measures, includingtemperature control and appropriate salt levels, are implemented throughout the process.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionListeriosis is endemic in Norway with sporadic clinical cases in animals, especially among sheep.However, listeriosis is not a common disease in humans in Norway. Most cases are sporadic and seen inthe elderly or in patients with underlying disease.

A. Listeriosis general evaluation

85Norway - 2010


Ready-to-eat products have been identified as a source for human listeriosis.

Recent actions taken to control the zoonosesUntil the Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria was implemented in March 2010, theNorwegian Food Safety Authority recommended that findings of L. monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foodproducts with a shelf life longer than 15 days and in which the bacteria easily could grow, should result inrecall from the market of the corresponding lot. Since then the requirements of the Regulation (EC) No2073/2005 apply, i.e., monitoring of the production process, shelf-life studies when deemed appropriate,withdrawal from the market by unsatisfactory results and taking measures to prevent the recurrence of thecontamination, such as reviewing the production routines and shelf life of the product. Dietary advice isgiven to pregnant women.

86Norway - 2010


2.3.2 Listeriosis in humans


Case definitionA case from which L. monocytogenes has been detected in blood, cerebrospinal fluid or other normallysterile sites or a case with serology indicating recent infection.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedBacteriology (isolation of L. monocytogenes from a normally sterile site) followed by voluntary confirmation(species identification and serotyping) at the National Reference Laboratory.


History of the disease and/or infection in the countrySince 1982, the number of notified cases has varied from 2-50. The incidence rate has varied from 0.05-1.07 per 100 000. Most of the cases are sporadic, occurring in elderly individuals or persons withunderlying disease. A few congenital cases are also being reported. The first recorded outbreak oflisteriosis in Norway occured in 1992, involving six reported cases. The outbreak was linked to vacuumpacked cold cuts. In 2005, an outbreak occured in a hosptal in the middle of Norway. Three cases werereported, and the outbreak was linked to cold cuts. Another outbreak occured in 2007, involving 21reported cases of whom two died. The outbreak was linked to a Norwegian pasteurised soft-cheese.

Results of the investigationIn 2009, a total of 31 confirmed cases of listeriosis were notified (incidence rate 0.6 per 100 000), 24cases were infected in Norway, and none of the cases reported having been infected abroad. One of thecases was pregnancy-associated. Four deaths were recorded.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionListeriosis in humans is a relatively rare disease in Norway and has been so for many years. Most of thecases are sporadic, occurring in elderly individuals or persons with underlying diseases. There is,however, an increasing trend if we look at the number of recorded cases over a twenty year period. Theincrease is not seen in pregnancy-associated cases. The reason for this increasing trend is unknown, butcould be related both to an increase in the number of in elderly individuals and persons with otherunderlying diseases, and to increased exposure to L. monocytogenes in consumed food.

Relevance as zoonotic diseaseListeriosis in humans is a relatively rare disease in Norway.

A. Listeriosis in humans

87Norway - 2010


2.3.3 Listeria in foodstuffs


No continuous monitoring of foodstuffs takes place. Surveys are occasionally performed. Norway followsthe EU requirements regarding testing for L. monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods (Regulation (EC) NO2073/2005). Samples are taken as part of internal control programmes in the food producing industry.

Definition of positive findingAt the production plant

A positive sample is a sample from which Listeria spp. has been isolated.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedAt the production plant

NMKL No 136:2007

At retailNMKL No136:2007, ISO 1129-1/Amd 2004, ISO 11290-2:1998


No official control programmes in place. When relevant, monitoring and control take place as an integralpart of food business operators' internal control systems.

Measures in case of the positive findingsPreviously, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority recommends that findings of L. monocytogenes in ready-to-eat food products with a shelf life longer than 15 days and in which the bacteria could easily grow,should result in recall from the market of the corresponding lot. Since 1st March 2011 the requirements ofthe Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 apply, i.e., monitoring of the production process, shelf-life studies whendeemed appropriate, withdrawal from the market by unsatisfactory results and taking measures to preventthe recurrence of the contamination, such as reviewing the production routines and shelf life of theproduct.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, a total of 85 samples of fish from wild stock and 28 samples of farmed fish were investigated. Atotal of three samples of farmed fish were positive for L. monocytogenes, but in very low concentrations.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionIn general, the occurrence of L. monocytogenes in food products is low.

A. Listeria spp. in food

88Norway - 2010

89

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Listeria monocytogenes in other foods

NIFES Single 25 g 28 3 28 3 28 0 0Fish - raw (Farmed fish)

NIFES Single 25 g 85 0 85 0 85 0 0Fish - raw (Fish from wild stocks)



Total unitspositive for L.monocytogen

es

Units testedwith detection

method

Listeriamonocytogenes presence

in x g

Units testedwith

enumerationmethod

> detectionlimit but <=100 cfu/g

L.monocytogen

es > 100cfu/g


2.3.4 Listeria in animals


Listeriosis is a notifiable disease in animals.

There are no active surveillance regarding L. monocytogenes in animals. Information is achieved throughclinical and laboratory reports.

Frequency of the samplingWhen there is a suspected case.

Case definitionA case may be defined by 1) positive histopathology combined with clinical signs, 2) positive bacteriology.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedBacteriology, histopathology and immunohistochemistry.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesNormally none.

Notification system in placeListeriosis has been a list C disease according to the Animal Disease Act since 1965.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, a total of 85 samples of fish from wild stock and 28 samples of farmed fish were investigated. Atotal of three samples of farmed fish were positive for L. monocytogenes, but in very low concentrations.


Listeria spp. is present in the environment and also in food-producing animals. However, there is noepidemiological evidence that listeriosis in humans are linked to listeriosis in animals.

A. Listeria spp., unspecified in animal - All animals

90Norway - 2010

91

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Listeria in animals

NVI Animal unknown 4 4Cattle (bovine animals)

NVI Animal unknown 25 25Goats

NVI Animal unknown 35 35Sheep

NVI Animal unknown 1 1Alpacas


Sampling unit Units testedTotal unitspositive for

Listeria

L.monocytogen

es

Listeria spp.,unspecified


2.4 E. COLI INFECTIONS


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryThe reported incidence of VTEC infections in humans in Norway has so far been low. Approximately halfof the cases are acquired domestically. In 2006 there was a severe outbreak caused by VTEC O103:H25with 17 patients, out of which 10 developed HUS and one died. In 2009 there was another outbreak,cased by sorbitol fermenting E. coli O157:H-. There were 19 cases, out of which 9 developed HUS andone died. In 2010, another outbreak occurred, with 3 cases infected with the same strain as in the 2009-outbreak.

A study conducted in 1995 revealed a low prevalence of VTEC O157 among Norwegian dairy cattle;animal prevalence 0.3% and herd prevalence 1.0%. In a survey conducted in 1998-1999, one out of 574dairy cattle herds were positive for VTEC O157 (herd prevalence 0.2%, animal prevalence between 0.02and 0.06%).

In 2000, none of the tested 1435 beef cattle from 165 herds were positive for VTEC O157. A survey in2002, in which 453 pooled faecal samples from 155 beef cattle herds were tested for the presence ofVTEC O26, O103, O111, O145 and O157, revealed five pooled samples from five herds positive for VTECO103, all eae negative.

In the surveillance programme for VTEC O157 in cattle, sheep, and goat carcasses running in the period1998-2004, the total carcass prevalence was 0.06% for cattle and 0.03% for sheep. None of the 510 goatcarcasses tested were positive.

In a national survey in sheep conducted in 2006-2007, samples from 585 flocks were analysed, 94 flocksfrom 2006 and 491 flocks from 2007. VTEC O103:H2 (stx1 and eae positives) were detected in 0.7% andVTEC O157:H7 (stx2 and eae positives, one was also stx1 positive) in 0.9% of the flocks. Only the 2007samples were analysed for E. coli O26, and VTEC O26 were detected in 0.8% of the flocks. In addition stxnegative and eae positive E. coli O26 were detected in 16.1%, stx negative and eae positive E. coliO103:H2 in 3.1%, and stx negative and eae positive E. coli O103:H25 in 5.8% of the flocks.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionAlthough the annual incidence in humans in Norway up to 2006 was low and predominantly involvedsporadic cases, the fear that the incidence might increase in the future, and that outbreaks may occurproved valid in 2006. Data show that VTEC O157 is present in the cattle and sheep populations, andalthough the prevalences seem to be low, this reservoir represents a source of possible human infection.The 2006 outbreak caused by VTEC O103:H25 showed that other VTEC than the "high five" (VTEC O26,O103:H2, O111, O145 and O157) may be of potential danger to humans.


Although the prevalence of VTEC O157 in the cattle and sheep populations seems to be low, there areother VTEC where the knowledge is sparse. In general, there is always a potential for contamination in thefood chain, which requires alertness at all steps from primary production, through processing, and retail

A. Verotoxigenic Escherichia coli infections general evaluation

92Norway - 2010


and food preparation, as well as alertness among physicians and diagnostic laboratories.

93Norway - 2010


2.4.2 E. coli infections in humans


Haemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) became a notifiable disease in December 2006. Before that, HUSwas not notifiable per se, but was reported in relation to an EHEC diagnosis.

Case definitionA case from which enterohaemorrhagic E. coli or its toxins have been detected from faecal samples.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedClinical microbiological laboratories use plating on selective media (such as SMAC) in order to detectpresumptive VTEC O157 and/or genetic methods directed towards detection of Shiga toxin genesfollowed by isolation of VTEC and confirmation at the National Reference Laboratory. Confirmationincludes examination for the presence of Shiga toxin genes and other virulence factors.

Notification system in placeAccording to the Communicable Disease Act, human cases are notifiable to the Norwegian SurveillanceSystem for Communicable Diseases (MSIS) since 1995. Haemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) became anotifiable disease in December 2006.

History of the disease and/or infection in the countryThe reported incidence of VTEC infections in humans in Norway has been low. The number of cases hasvaried between 0-51 per year, except in 2009 with 108 reported cases. Approximately half of the casesare acquired domestically. Most reported cases are caused by VTEC O157. The first foodborne VTECoutbreak in Norway occurred in 1999 and involved four culture positive patients (O157). Epidemiologicalinvestigations incriminated domestically produced lettuce as the most likely source of infection. A severeoutbreak caused by VTEC O103:H25 in 2006 involved 17 patients of which 10 developed HUS and onedied. In 2009, an outbreak caused by sorbitol fermenting O157:H- occurred. Thirteen children got ill, andof these nine developed HUS and one child died. The source of the outbreak was not found.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, 51 cases (incidence rate 1.0 per 100.000) of VTEC and HUS were reported. A total of 5 cases ofHUS were reported; sorbitol fermenting O157:H- was isolated from 3 of the patients, O121:H? from onepatient, and O26:H11 from one patient. Of the 51 cases of VTEC infections reported, the most commonlyisolated serotypes were O103 (11 cases), O157 (8 cases) and O26 (2 cases). Eleven of the 51 casesreported contracting the infection abroad. There was one outbreak with HUS counting 3 cases.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe number of cases reported in 2010 is much lower than the cases reported in 2009. One outbreakcounting three HUS cases was reported, as opposed to the seven outbreaks reported last year. Many ofthe notified cases in 2009 were detected because of increased attention and testing due to the outbreaks.The laboratory methods have probably improved since the O103 outbreak Norway experienced in 2006.

A. Verotoxigenic Escherichia coli infections in humans

94Norway - 2010


Even though there is a decrease from 2009 to 2010, the 51 cases of VTEC and 5 cases of HUS reportedin 2010 reflects an increasing trend for EHEC in Norway. The reason for this increase is unknown.

Relevance as zoonotic diseaseData show that VTEC is present in the cattle and sheep populations, although the prevalences seem to below. However, there is also a reservoir of E. coli with eae, but stx negative, that may be of concern ashuman pathogenics (aEPEC) or as precursors for VTEC. Thus, there is a potential for contamination in thefood chain or by direct animal contact, which requires alertness at all steps from primary production,through processing, and retail and food preparation, as well as alertness among physicians and diagnosticlaboratories.

Additional informationPatients whose work represents a risk for spread of the disease, e.g., people working with foodproduction, children in day-care and health care personell, are advised to stay away from work while theyhave symptoms. It is recommended that for these patients five consecutive faecal samples examined afterthe symptoms have disappeared should be negative before returning to work.

95Norway - 2010

96

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

2.4.3 Escherichia coli, pathogenic in foodstuffs

Table VT E. coli in food

Comments:1) 188 samples investigated for O157, 10 samples investigated for O26 and 5 samples investigated for O103. The positive sample was isolated from faeces

from calves.

NVI Single 203 1 1 1

All foodstuffs - unspecified - Clinical investigations(Taken in relation to outbreaks in humans. Mainlyfrom patients' homes. Includes a small amount ofenvironmental samples including samples fromanimals.)

1)




VerotoxigenicE. coli

(VTEC)


(VTEC) -VTEC O157


(VTEC) -VTEC non-

O157


(VTEC) -VTEC,

unspecified


(VTEC) -VTEC O26


(VTEC) -VTEC O26 -eae positivevtx1 positive


2.4.4 Escherichia coli, pathogenic in animals


Prevalence surveys in cattle, sheep and goats have been conducted occasionally since 1998. In 2006-2007 a survey regarding VTEC in sheep was conducted, with a total of 593 flocks sampled. Single faecalsamples were collected from the 50 youngest animals in each flock.

Type of specimen takenAnimals at farm

Faeces


Faecal samples


An animal or herd from which VTEC is isolated.


Modification of NMKL No 164:1999 with IMS (or IMS-ELISA) followed by virulence characterization byPCR.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesIf VTEC O157 or other VTEC that can pose a health risk for humans is detected in an official surveyamong live animals, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority and Municipal Medical Officer are notified.Restrictions may be imposed on livestock holdings where such VTEC is detected.

The holdings sampled in the survey of sheep flocks in 2006-2007 were anonymized.Notification system in place

Findings in carcasses of VTEC O157 or other VTEC that can pose a health risk to humans lead tocondemnation of the carcasses and notification to the authorities. Findings of such VTEC in samples fromlive animals are not notifiable as an animal disease, but since VTEC is a pathogen that can be transmittedfrom animals to humans, competent authorities have to be informed about positive findings.

Results of the investigationIn 2010 more than 200 samples, mainly from food but also some from animals and environment wereinvestigated at the Norwegian Veterinary Institute due to follow up of human cases. Definite links betweenhuman cases and the samples from food, animals and environment were not identified except for onecase in a young child where the same O26 strain was found in faeces from calves at a petting zoo thechild had visited.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infection

A. Verotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC) in animal - All animals (Ruminants)

97Norway - 2010


The prevalence of human pathogenic VTEC O157, O103, O26, O45 and O111 is still considered low inNorwegian cattle, sheep and goats.

98Norway - 2010


2.5 TUBERCULOSIS, MYCOBACTERIAL DISEASES


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryNorway has been granted the officially tuberculosis-free status of bovine herds by the EFTA SurveillanceAuthority (ESA) (EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 28/07/COL) as Norway fulfills the requirementslaid down in Council Directive 64/432/EEC as amended.

Bovine tuberculosis (M. bovis) was declared eliminated in cattle in Norway in 1963 as a result of an officialeradication programme against the disease. During the period 1895-1896, 26% of 2195 tuberculin-testedherds were positive. In 1950, 18 herds were registered as being infected, while in the beginning of the1960s only one or two infected herds were reported annually. Since bovine tuberculosis was declaredeliminated, it has only been recorded three times; in 1984 in two cattle herds and in 1986 in one cattleherd. These herds were in the same geographical area and the origin of the infection in these herds wasprobably a man with tuberculosis. Tuberculosis caused by M. bovis in other animal species than cattle hasnot been recorded in Norway after the disease was eliminated from cattle in 1963.

Tuberculosis in humans caused by M. bovis is only sporadically recorded in Norway, and since 1977 thefew recorded cases have been imported except for one case of reactivation in 1994.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionAs Norway is officially free from bovine tuberculosis, the probability of contracting M. bovis infection fromNorwegian animals or animal products of Norwegian origin is close to zero.


There have been no findings of M. bovis in animals or foodstuffs. The probability of contracting M. bovisinfection from Norwegian animals or animal products of Norwegian origin is close to zero.

A. Tuberculosis general evaluation

99Norway - 2010


2.5.2 Tuberculosis, mycobacterial diseases in humans

Reporting system in place for the human casesHuman cases are reported to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS),from microbiological laboratories as well as from clinical doctors. The system distinguishes betweenNorwegian and foreign born cases. The severity of the disease at the time of reporting is also recorded.The surveillance system includes individual treatment outcome data for all tuberculosis patients.

Case definitionA confirmed case of M. bovis, M. tuberculosis, or M. africanum is a case that has been confirmed byisolation of M. bovis, M. tuberculosis, or M. africanum, respectively. Cases of tuberculosis that arediagnosed without laboratory confirmation (diagnoses based on clinical symptoms and X-ray examination)are also notified and included in the statistics.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedClinical indications: Bacteriology, X-ray, pathology.

Screening: Miniature X-ray, tuberculin skin testing, Interferon-gamma release assays.

Notification system in placeAccording to the Communicable Disease Act, human cases caused by bacilli belonging to the M.tuberculosis complex (including M. tuberculosis, M. bovis, and M. africanum) are notifiable to theNorwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS) since 1975, and before that notifiableto a separate Tuberculosis Register since 1900.

History of the disease and/or infection in the countryThe incidence of human tuberculosis (M. bovis and M. tuberculosis) has steadily decreased during the last50 years in persons of Norwegian origin. BCG vaccination was introduced in 1947 and was mandatoryuntil 1995. Pasteurisation of milk for commercial sale became mandatory in 1951. Since 1977, the annualincidence rate in persons born in Norway has decreased from 11 to 1.4 per 100 000, and most cases inthis part of the population are recurrent cases in elderly patients. Along with increased immigration toNorway, the proportion of tuberculosis cases involving persons born outside Norway has increased duringthe last two decades (from less than 10% in 1977 to 81% in 2006).

Since bovine tuberculosis in cattle was eliminated in Norway in 1963, almost all bacteriologicallyconfirmed cases in humans have been caused by M. tuberculosis. The last domestic case of tuberculosiscaused by M. bovis was reported in 1994 in a 100-year old woman infected in her youth. Apart from thiscase, no indigenous cases of tuberculosis caused by M. bovis in humans have been reported since 1977.Imported cases of tuberculosis caused by M. bovis are sporadically reported; in 2010 in one patient fromAfrica, in 2005 in two patients from Somalia and Afghanistan, respectively, in 2002 one patient fromSomalia, in 2001 one patient from Tanzania, in 2000 two patients from Somalia and Morocco,respectively, in 1999 one patient from Sri Lanka, in 1998 one patient from Somalia, and in 1994 onepatient infected in India.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, one case with tuberculosis caused by M. bovis was notified. The patient was infected in Africa.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infection

A. Tuberculosis due to Mycobacterium bovis in humans

100Norway - 2010


Tuberculosis caused by M. bovis is only sporadically recorded in Norway, and except for a case ofreactivation in 1994, the few recorded cases reported since 1977 have been imported.

Relevance as zoonotic diseaseAs Norway is officially free from bovine tuberculosis, the probability of contracting M. bovis infection fromNorwegian animals or animal products of Norwegian origin is close to zero.

Additional informationIn Norway, the child vaccination programme has included vaccination against tuberculosis since 1947.The BCG vaccine (live attenuated M. bovis) is offered to unvaccinated and tuberculin negative personsbelonging to certain risk groups; immigrants from countries with high prevalence of tuberculosis, personstravelling to highendemic areas for a prolonged timeperiod, teachers, health personnel, personnel onships and in offshore industry, and military personnel.In addition, the BCG vaccine is offered to all children during junior high school (13-14 years old). Ingeneral, the immunisation coverage in Norwegian children is high; for the BCG vaccine it is estimated tobe 99%. In Norway, the BCG vaccine is estimated to give 80% protection against tuberculosis.Tuberculin skin test is mandatory for immigrants coming to Norway from high prevalence countries.Immigrants who are 15 years or older must also undergo chest radiograph screening. Screening fortuberculosis in certain risk populations is sometimes conducted.

101Norway - 2010


2.5.3 Mycobacterium in animals

Status as officially free of bovine tuberculosis during the reporting yearThe entire country free

Norway has been granted the officially tuberculosis-free status of bovine herds by the EFTA SurveillanceAuthority (ESA) (EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 28/07/COL) as Norway fulfills the requirementslaid down in Council Directive 64/432/EEC as amended.


Every slaughtered animal, except animals slaughtered for on-the-farm consumption, is subjected to meatinspection regarding tuberculosis (lymph node examination) according to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004(until the 1st of March: Council Directive 64/433/EEC). All breeding bulls are tuberculin tested severaltimes. Imported animals are tuberculin tested if considered relevant based upon individual assessment. Ifsuspicion arises whether an animal may have tuberculosis (sick or dead animal), relevant tests will becarried out.

Frequency of the samplingAll slaughtered animals are subject to meat inspection.

Imported animals are tested during week 22 of the six months long isolation period.

Breeding bulls are tuberculin tested before being transferred to a semen collection centre and thereaftersubject to yearly testing.

Type of specimen takenAnimals for slaughter: Lymph nodes. Breeding animals and imported animals: Tuberculin testing.

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Slaughtered animals: Meat inspection at the slaughterhouse; lymph node examination.

Imported animals and breeding animals: Tuberculin testing.

Clinical indications: Methods will vary depending on the problem.Case definition

A single animal from which M. bovis or M. tuberculosis has been isolated. The herd is the epidemiologicalunit.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedSlaughtered animals: Meat inspection regarding tuberculosis (lymph node examination) according toRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 (until the 1st of March: Council Directive 64/433/EEC) If indicated:bacteriology and histology. Clinical indications: Tuberculin testing (intradermal comparative test),pathology, and/or bacteriology. Breeding animals and imported animals: Tuberculin testing (intradermalcomparative test).

Vaccination policyVaccination of animals against tuberculosis is prohibited in Norway.

A. Mycobacterium bovis in bovine animals

102Norway - 2010



Every slaughtered animal, except animals slaughtered for on-the-farm consumption, is subjected to meatinspection regarding tuberculosis (lymph node examination) according to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004(until the 1st of March: Council Directive 64/433/EEC).

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesNorway would as a minimum implement the measures as laid down in Council Directive 64/432/EEC asamended in case of positive findings or if suspicion of tuberculosis in bovine animals should arise.

Notification system in placeTuberculosis caused by M. bovis or M. tuberculosis of all species has been a notifiable List B diseaseaccording to the Animal Diseases Act since 1894.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, two slaughtered bovine animals had findings at slaughter indicating tuberculosis, and wassubmitted for examination for Mycobacterium sp. The samples were negative.A total of 275 bulls owned by a breeding company all had negative tuberculin tests.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionBovine tuberculosis was declared eliminated in cattle in 1963.


There have been no findings of M. bovis in animals or foodstuffs. The risk for humans contractingtuberculosis from livestock within the country is negligible.

103Norway - 2010



Every slaughtered animal, except animals slaughtered for on-the-farm consumption, is subjected to meatinspection regarding tuberculosis (lymph node examination) by an official veterinarian according toRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 (until the 1st of March: Council Directive 64/433/EEC) Imported deer aretuberculin tested if considered relevant based upon individual assessment. If suspicion arises whether ananimal may have tuberculosis (sick or dead animal), relevant tests will be carried out.


Imported deer are tested during week 5 of the two months long isolation period.Type of specimen taken

Animals for slaughter: Lymph nodes. Imported animals: Tuberculin testing.


Imported animals: Tuberculin testing.



Diagnostic/analytical methods usedSlaughtered animals: Meat inspection regarding tuberculosis (lymph node examination) by an officialveterinarian according to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 (until the 1st of March: Council Directive64/433/EEC). If indicated: bacteriology and histology. Imported animals: Tuberculin testing (intradermalcomparative test). Clinical indications: Tuberculin testing (intradermal comparative test), pathology, and/orbacteriology.

Vaccination policyVaccination of animals against tuberculosis is prohibited in Norway.


Every slaughtered animal, except animals slaughtered for on-the-farm consumption, is subjected to meatinspection regarding tuberculosis (lymph node examination) by an official veterinarian according toRegulation (EC) No 854/2004 (until the 1st of March: Council Directive 64/433/EEC). Required autopsy ofanimals older than 12 months of age that die or are killed because of a disease.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesNorway would as a minimum implement the measures as laid down in Council Directive 64/432/EEC asamended in case of positive findings or if suspicion of tuberculosis should arise.

Notification system in placeTuberculosis caused by M. bovis or M. tuberculosis of all species has been a notifiable List B diseaseaccording to the Animal Diseases Act since 1894.

B. Mycobacterium bovis in farmed deer

104Norway - 2010


Results of the investigationIn 2010, material from one farmed deer was submitted for examination for Mycobacterium sp. The samplewas negative.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionBovine tuberculosis has not been diagnosed in farmed deer in Norway. The population of farmed deer isvery small in Norway.



105Norway - 2010



For cattle and farmed deer, see the respective chapters. Every slaughtered animal, except poultry andanimals slaughtered for on-the-farm consumption, is subjected to meat inspection regarding tuberculosis(lymph node examination) by an official veterinarian according to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 (until the1st of March: Council Directive 64/433/EEC). Imported animals are tuberculin tested if considered relevantbased upon individual assessment. Boars selected for export of semen to USA are tuberculin tested. Ifsuspicion arises whether an animal may have tuberculosis (sick or dead animal), relevant tests will bedone.


Imported animals: Sheep and goats are tested during week 23 of the two years long isolation period. Pigsare tested during week 7 of the two months long isolation period. Lamas are tested during week 22 of thesix months long isolation period.

Type of specimen takenAnimals for slaughter: Lymph nodes. Imported or exported animals: Tuberculin testing.


Imported animals and breeding animals: Tuberculin testing.



Diagnostic/analytical methods usedSlaughtered animals: Meat inspection regarding tuberculosis (lymph node examination) by an officialveterinarian according to Council Directive 64/433/EEC. If indicated: bacteriology and histology.

Tests of imports, exports: Tuberculin testing (intradermal comparative test).

Clinical indications: Tuberculin testing (intradermal comparative test), pathology, and/or bacteriology.

Vaccination policyVaccination of animals against tuberculosis is prohibited.


Every slaughtered animal, except poultry and animals slaughtered for on-the-farm consumption, issubjected to meat inspection regarding tuberculosis (lymph node examination) by an official veterinarianaccording to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 (until the 1st of March: Council Directive 64/433/EEC).

Measures in case of the positive findings or single cases

C. Mycobacterium spp. in animal

106Norway - 2010


Norway would as a minimum implement the measures as laid down in Council Directive 64/432/EEC asamended in case of positive findings or if suspicion of tuberculosis should arise.

Notification system in placeTuberculosis caused by M. bovis or M. tuberculosis in all species has been a notifiable List B diseaseaccording to the Animal Diseases Act since 1894. Cases are to be notified to the Norwegian Food SafetyAuthority.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, tuberculin tests were performed on 99 breeding boars at AI stations, all were negative. Samplesfrom four pigs, three dogs, one sheep, dog and one horse were analyzed for the presence ofMycobacterium species. The animals were negative.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionBovine tuberculosis was declared eliminated in cattle in 1963, and has since then not been recorded inother animal species.



107Norway - 2010

108

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Tuberculosis in other animals

NVI Animal 4 0Pigs

NVI Animal 1 0Sheep

NVI Animal 3 0Dogs

Breedingcompany Animal 99 0Pigs - breeding animals - at AI station

NVI Animal 1 0Solipeds, domestic




Mycobacterium

M. bovis M.tuberculosis

Mycobacterium spp.,

unspecified

109

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Tuberculosis in farmed deer

Comments:1) N.A.

Herds Animals Number of herds % Number of herds %

IndicatorsNumber of

tuberculin testscarried out beforethe introductioninto the herds

Number ofanimals withsuspiciouslesions of

tuberculosisexamined andsubmitted to

histopathologicaland

bacteriologicalexaminations

Number ofanimals detected

positive inbacteriologicalexamination

Total number of existing farmed deer Infected herdsFree herds

Interval betweenroutine tuberculin

tests

Number ofanimals tested

Routine tuberculin testing

Region

75 7131 75 100 0 0 1 0Norge

75 7131 75 100 0 0 N.A. 0 0 1 0Total :1)

If present, the row "Total -1" refers to analogous data of the previous year.

110

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Bovine tuberculosis in countries and regions that do not receive Community co-financing for eradication programmes

Comments:1) N.A.

Herds Animals Number of herds % Number of herds %

Number oftuberculin tests

carried out beforethe introductioninto the herds

(Annex A(I)(2)(c)third indent (1) of

Directive64/432/EEC)

Number ofanimals withsuspiciouslesions of

tuberculosisexamined andsubmitted to

histopathologicaland

bacteriological

Number ofanimals detected

positive inbacteriologicalexamination

Total number of existing bovine Infected herdsOfficially free herds

Interval betweenroutine tuberculin

tests

Number ofanimals tested

Routine tuberculin testing

Region

16800 872100 16800 100 0 0 275 2 0Norge

16800 872100 16800 100 0 0 N.A. 275 0 2 0Total :1)



2.6 BRUCELLOSIS


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryBovine brucellosis has been a notifiable disease since 1903. An offensive eradication programme toeliminate the disease was launched in 1935, and Norway was declared free from bovine brucellosis in1953. Ovine, caprine, or porcine brucellosis has never been recorded in Norway. Norway has beengranted official brucellosis-free status of bovine herds by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) (EFTASurveillance Authority Decision No 28/07/COL). Also regarding Brucella melitensis, Norway fulfils therequirements for an officially free status for the disease in sheep and goats, however, a formal decision isnot available.

Human brucellosis has always been a rare disease in Norway, the majority of the cases being imported,and a few cases due to laboratory infections domestically.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionAs bovine brucellosis was declared eliminated in Norway in 1953, and ovine, caprine, or porcinebrucellosis has never been recorded, Norway is considered free from brucellosis in production animals.

Research studies have shown that antibodies against Brucella can be detected in marine mammals(minke whales and hooded seals) from the North Atlantic Ocean, and in polar bears from the archipelagoof Svalbard and the Barents Sea. Brucella sp. different from previously described species has also beenisolated from hooded seals from the Greenland Sea.


There have been no findings of Brucella spp. in terrestrial animals or foodstuffs. The probability ofcontracting brucellosis from Norwegian animals or animal products of Norwegian origin is close to zero.

A. Brucellosis general evaluation

111Norway - 2010


2.6.2 Brucellosis in humans


Case definitionA clinically compatible case that is laboratory confirmed.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedSerology (serum antibody test or antigen test of clinical specimen) and bacteriology (isolation).


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryHuman brucellosis has always been a rare disease in Norway. During the period 1983-2010, only 20cases of brucellosis were reported: In 2010 two cases infected abroad. In 2006 three cases of which twohad travelled to countries outside Europe and for the third case, there was no information available. In2005 one case infected in Africa. In 2004 two cases; one infected at work (health care/laboratory), theother infected in Cyprus. In 2003 three cases; two probably infected in Ethiopia and one probably infectedin a laboratory. In 2002 three cases; from Spain, Iraq and Georgia. In 2001 two cases; both probablyinfected in Lebanon. In 2000 one case infected in Turkey probably through milk. In 1999 one case infectedthrough milk in Turkey. In 1997 one immigrant from Turkey. In 1987 a Norwegian UN soldier stationed inLebanon (B. melitensis).

Results of the investigationIn 2010 two cases were reported. Both cases were infected abroad.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionBrucellosis is rarely recorded in Norway. Since 1983, only 18 cases have been recorded. Two of these areknown to be infected in Norway, both laboratory contracted.

Relevance as zoonotic diseaseAs Norway is free from brucellosis in terrestrial food producing animals, the risk of humans contractingbrucellosis from such animals or from Norwegian animal products is considered negligible. However, therecent findings of Brucella species in marine mammals needs further research to better understand theepidemiology and to address possible public health implications.

A. Brucellosis in humans

112Norway - 2010


2.6.3 Brucella in animals

Status as officially free of bovine brucellosis during the reporting yearThe entire country free

Norway is regarded as officially free from bovine brucellosis according to the EFTA Surveillance Authority(ESA) (EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 28/07/COL).


Surveillance programme: During the years 2000-2004, the programme consisted of an active surveillancepart, where 20% of the Norwegian cattle population were sampled each year, and a passive surveillancepart, where aborted foetuses and blood samples from their dams were investigated. Since 20% of theNorwegian cattle population had been tested annually for five consecutive years and thereby fulfilled therequirements from the EU, the programme in 2005 was reduced to passive surveillance only. According tothe programme, all abortions between the fifth month of pregnancy and 14 days before expected birth in aherd in which there has been at least two such abortions the last 12 months, should be sampled. Inaddition, blood samples from the cow should be examined.

All breeding bulls are tested.

Imported animals are serologically tested if considered relevant, based upon an assessment of the healthstatus in the country of origin.

Tests are also carried out in connection with clinical indications and export.Frequency of the sampling

All breeding bulls are tested serologically twice before being transferred to a semen collection centre, andsubsequently retested within 12 months. Bulls are thereafter subject to yearly testing.

Imported cattle are tested at week 22 during the six months long isolation period.Type of specimen taken

Blood or foetus.

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Surveillance programme: Foetus and the foetal membranes and paired blood samples from the motherare collected.

Other monitoring systems: Blood samples.

All samples are collected at farm.Case definition

An animal which is seropositive for Brucella spp. even after retesting at least four weeks later, or ananimal from which Brucella spp. has been isolated. The herd is the epidemiological unit.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedFoetus: Full autopsy, histopathology, bacteriology.

A. Brucella abortus in bovine animals

113Norway - 2010


Blood samples from cows: Antibodies against Brucella in an indirect ELISA (Svanova). If the results aredoubtful or positive, the samples are retested in duplicates. If the result still is doubtful or positive, thesample is tested with a competitive ELISA (C-ELISA, Svanova). If still positive, a complement fixation (CF)test is used. If the CF test is positive, new samples are taken four to six weeks after the initial sampling. Ifthis is positive, or if there is a need for immediate follow up, the animal will be tested with an intracutanetest using Brucellergene OCB from B. melitensis (Synbiotics).

Breeding animals, imports, exports: Serology (Rose bengal plate agglutination test, serum agglutinationtest or complement fixation test depending on the customers demands).

All tests are performed according to the OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for TerrestrialAnimals, 5th ed. 2004. The indirect ELISA is standardized against EU Directive 64/432/EEC Annex C.

Vaccination policyVaccination of animals against brucellosis is prohibited in Norway.


The surveillance programme in cattle herds (in accordance to Council Directive 64/432/EEC Annex I) wasestablished in 2000.

All breeding bulls are serologically tested twice before being transferred to a semen collection centre, andsubsequently within 12 months. Bulls are thereafter subjected to yearly testing.

Imported cattle are serologically tested if considered relevant based upon an individual assessment.

Tests are also carried out in connection with clinical indications and export.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesNorway would as a minimum implement the measures as laid down in Council Directive 64/432/EEC asamended in case of positive findings or if suspicion of brucellosis in bovine animals should arise.

Notification system in placeBovine brucellosis has been a notifiable List A disease according to the Animal Diseases Act since 1903.Cases are to be notified to the Norwegian Food Safety Authority.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, animals from a total of four herds were were investigated in the surveillance programme (bloodsamples, aborted fetuses and bulk milk). A total of 491 bulls owned by a breeding company were testedfor brucellosis. All samples were negative.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionBovine brucellosis was eliminated from Norway in 1953. No positive cases have been found since then.


There have been no findings of Brucella spp. in cattle or foodstuffs from cattle. The probability ofcontracting brucellosis from Norwegian animals or animal products of Norwegian origin is close to zero.

114Norway - 2010


Status as officially free of caprine brucellosis during the reporting yearThe entire country free

Due to its history in regard to Brucella melitensis, Norway fulfils the requirements for an officially freestatus for the disease.


Surveillance programme: A large proportion of herds are selected for sampling each year. The programmestarted in 2007.

Imported goats are serologically tested if considered relevant based upon an assessment of the healthstatus in the country of origin.

Frequency of the samplingSurveillance programme: A selection of herds in the population is tested every year.Imported goats are tested for brucellosis in week 2 and 23 during the two year's isolation period.

Type of specimen takenBlood

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Individual blood samples are collected at farm.Surveillance programme: In flocks with less than 30 animals, all animals are sampled; in herds with 30-100 animals, 30 are sampled; in herds with 100-200 animals, 35 are sampled; in herds with more than 200animals, 40 animals are sampled.

Case definitionAn animal showing significant antibody titre to Brucella spp. or an animal from which Brucella spp. hasbeen isolated. The herd is the epidemiological unit.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedRose bengal plate agglutination test was used for initial screening. A competitive ELISA (C-ELISA,Svanova) was used to follow up unclear or positive reactions due to possible cross reactions.

Vaccination policyVaccination of animals against brucellosis is prohibited.


The national surveillance programme and the control of imported animals are run by the Norwegian FoodSafety Authority.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesNorway would as a minimum implement the measures as laid down in Council Directive 91/68/EEC incase of positive findings or if suspicion of brucellosis in caprine animals should arise.

Notification system in placeBrucellosis in all species has been a notifiable List A disease according to the Animal Diseases Act since1903. Cases are to be notified to the Norwegian Food Safety Authority.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, in the surveillance programme, 779 animals from 25 herds were tested for antibodies against B.melitensis. All were negative.

B. Brucella melitensis in goats

115Norway - 2010


National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionCaprine brucellosis has never been recorded in Norway.


There have been no findings of Brucella spp. in goat or foodstuffs from goat. The probability of contractingbrucellosis from Norwegian animals or animal products of Norwegian origin is close to zero.

116Norway - 2010


Status as officially free of ovine brucellosis during the reporting yearThe entire country free

Due to its history in regard to Brucella melitensis, Norway fulfils the requirements for an officially freestatus for the disease.


Surveillance programme: A large proportion of herds being part of the breeding system with ram circlesare tested. Randomly selected flocks not being part of any ram circles are also tested.

Imported sheep are serologically tested if considered relevant based upon an assessment of the healthstatus in the country of origin.

Frequency of the samplingSurveillance programme: A selection of herds in the population is tested every year.

Imported sheep are tested for brucellosis at week 2 and 23 during the two year isolation period.Type of specimen taken

Blood

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Individual blood samples are collected at the farms.

Surveillance programme: In flocks with less than 30 animals, all animals are sampled; in herds with 30-100 animals, 30 are sampled; in herds with 100-200 animals, 35 are sampled; in herds with more than 200animals, 40 animals are sampled.

Case definitionAn animal which is seropositive for Brucella spp. or an animal from which Brucella spp. has been isolated.The herd is the epidemiological unit.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedRose bengal plate agglutination test is used for the initial screening. A competitive ELISA (C-ELISA,Svanova) was used to follow up unclear or positive reactions due to possible cross reactions.

Vaccination policyVaccination of animals against brucellosis is prohibited.


The national surveillance programme and the control of imported animals are run by the Norwegian FoodSafety Authority.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesNorway would as a minimum implement the measures as laid down in Council Directive 91/68/EEC incase of positive findings or if suspicion of brucellosis in ovine animals should arise.


Results of the investigation

C. Brucella melitensis in sheep

117Norway - 2010


In 2009, in the surveillance programme, 26681 animals from 816 herds were tested for antibodies againstB. melitensis. All were negative. All 140 rams tested for brucellosis were negative. All 36 animals tested inrelation to export or health control were negative.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionOvine brucellosis has never been recorded in Norway.


There have been no findings of Brucella spp. in sheep or foodstuffs from sheep. The probability ofcontracting brucellosis from Norwegian animals or animal products of Norwegian origin is close to zero.

118Norway - 2010



All breeding boars are tested.

Imported pigs are tested if considered relevant based upon an individual assessment.Frequency of the sampling

All breeding boars are tested twice before being transferred to a semen collection centre, andsubsequently within 12 months or before slaughter.

Imported pigs are tested during week 4 of the two months long isolation period.Type of specimen taken

Blood

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Blood samples are taken at the farms.

Case definitionAn animal which is seropositive for Brucella spp. or an animal from which Brucella spp. has been isolated.The herd is the epidemiological unit.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedRose Bengal plate agglutination test performed according to the latest edition of the OIE Manual ofDiagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, 2.8.5 Swine.

Vaccination policyVaccination of animals against brucellosis is prohibited in Norway.


All breeding boars are tested.

Imported pigs are tested if considered relevant based upon an individual assessment.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesIf Brucella should be detected, the competent authorities must be notified without delay. Actions would betaken to identify and eliminate the source of the contamination in order to prevent further spread. Stringentrestrictions including cleaning and disinfection, control of animal movement and control of personadmission would be imposed on the infected holding. The whole herd would be destroyed.


Results of the investigationIn 2010, all 1168 investigated pigs belonging to a breeding company tested negative. A total of 168 ofthese were tested in relation to export of live animals.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionPorcine brucellosis has never been recorded in Norway.

Relevance of the findings in animals to findings in foodstuffs and to human cases (as a

D. Brucella spp. in animal - Pigs

119Norway - 2010


source of infection)There have been no findings of Brucella spp. in swine or foodstuffs from swine. The probability ofcontracting brucellosis from Norwegian animals or animal products of Norwegian origin is close to zero.

120Norway - 2010

121

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Brucellosis in other animals

Breedingcompany Animal 1168 0Pigs

NVI Animal 14 0Alpacas

NVI Animal 27 0Dogs



BrucellaB. abortus B. melitensis B. suis

Brucella spp.,unspecified

NVI=Norwegian Veterinary Institute (mainly tested in relation to export or import).

Footnote:

122

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Ovine or Caprine Brucellosis in countries and regions that do not receive Community co-financing for eradication programme

Comments:1) N.A.

Animals Number ofherds % Number of

herds

Number ofanimalstested

Number ofinfected herds

Region

% Number ofherds tested

Number ofanimals

tested withserologicalblood tests

Number ofanimalspositivemicrobiologically

Number ofsuspended

herds

Number ofanimalspositive

serologically

Number ofanimals

examinedmicrobiologically

Herds

Officially free herds Infected herds Investigations of suspect casesSurveillanceTotal number of existing

16100 2364500 16100 100 0 0 8939 0 106 0Norge

16100 2364500 16100 100 0 0 0 8939 0 106 0 0 0 0Total :1)


123

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Bovine brucellosis in countries and regions that do not receive Community co-financing for eradication programme

Comments:1) N.A.

Animals Number ofherds % Number of

herds

Number ofanimalstested

Number ofinfectedherds

Region

%

Number ofbovineherdstested

Number ofbovineherdstested

Number ofnotified

abortionswhatever

cause

Number ofisolationsof Brucellainfection

Number ofanimals or

poolstested

Number ofinfectedherds

Herds

Examination of bulk milk Information about Epidemiological investigationSerological tests

Total number ofexisting bovine

Number ofabortions

due toBrucellaabortus

Number ofanimals

tested withserologicalblood tests

Number ofsuspended

herds

Number ofanimals

examinedmicrobiologically

Number ofanimalspositivemicrobiologically

Serologically BST

Officially free herds Infected herdsInvestigations of suspect casesSurveillance

Number of positiveanimals

16800 872100 16800 100 0 0 491 0 0 0 6 0 2 0Norge

16800 872100 16800 100 0 0 0 491 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 2 0Total :1)



2.7 YERSINIOSIS


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryIn the years 1982 - 1994, the number of notified cases in humans varied between 154 and 274 (mean187). From 1994 there was a steady decline in the reported incidence of yersiniosis. The decline wasinterrupted in 1998, and since then the incidence has been between 50 and 150 notified cases per year.

Studies conducted during the 1980s revealed that a large proportion of Norwegian pigs were carriers of Y.enterocolitica serogroup O:3 and that the same variant frequently could be isolated from pig carcasses. In1995-1996 a serological survey of all multiplier herds (n=66) belonging to the cooperative slaughterhouseorganisation showed that 35.5% of the fattening pigs had antibodies against Y. enterocolitica O:3, and80% of the herds had at least one pig (of 40 pigs tested per herd) with antibodies against Y. enterocoliticaO:3. In an other survey where blood samples from 5 fatteners in each of 326 randomly selected herdswere analysed for antibodies against Y. enterocolitica O:3, 53% of the pigs and 64% of the herds testedpositive.

In 1997-1998, 300 samples of raw pork products were analyzed. Y. enterocolitica O:3 was isolated from2% of the samples by a culturing method (NMKL method no. 117), while use of a PCR method indicatedthe presence of pathogenic Y. enterocolitica in 17% of the samples. This was lower than in a similarsurvey conducted in 1988-1989.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionFrom 1994 to 1998, a reduction in the incidence of yersiniosis in humans was observed. This declinecoincided with a gradual introduction of improved slaughter routines with the aim of preventing pigcarcasses from becoming contaminated with Y. enterocolitica.


Pork products are generally considered the most important source of yersiniosis in humans. A Norwegiancase-control study conducted in the period 1988-1990 identified consumption of such products as animportant risk factor in addition to consumption of untreated drinking water and a general preference forundercooked meat.

In 2006 two smaller outbreaks of yersiniosis both linked to a traditional cold cuts pork product werereported.

Recent actions taken to control the zoonosesDuring the mid 1990s, there was a gradual introduction of improved slaughter routines that aid inpreventing pig carcasses from being contaminated with Y. enterocolitica. A significant reduction ofreported cases of human yersiniosis was noted parallel to this.

A. Yersinia enterocolitica general evaluation

124Norway - 2010



2.7.2 Yersiniosis in humans


Cases confirmed by serology only are also reported, but due to recent changes in laboratory practicesthese are not included in this report.

Case definitionA case from which Yersinia enterocolitica or Y. pseudotuberculosis has been isolated or a clinicalcompatible case with an epidemiological link to a culture confirmed case.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedBacteriology (isolation of Yersinia species) followed by voluntary confirmation (species identification andserotyping) at the National Reference Laboratory.


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryIn the years 1982-1994, the number of notified cases varied between 154 and 274 (mean 187, median182). From 1994 there was a steady decline in yersiniosis reports. This decline coincided with a gradualintroduction of improved routines when slaughtering pigs, which resulted in reduced contamination with Y.enterocolitica to pig carcasses. The decline was interrupted in 1998, and since then the incidence hasbeen between 50 and 150 notified cases per year.

Results of the investigationIn 2009, a total of 60 cases of yersiniosis were reported (incidence rate 1.2 per 100 000). A total of 34(57%) cases were domestic.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionAlthough the incidence of yersiniosis has decreased in recent years and the number of registered cases ismoderate, the disease is still the fourth most commonly recorded foodborne zoonotic infection in Norway.Moreover, the majority of the cases have acquired the infection within Norway. The vast majority of casesare sporadic. The most common serogroup is O:3. The number of cases reported in 2010 is almost thesame as in 2008, which had the lowest number of reported cases since the surveillance of yersiniosisstarted.

Relevance as zoonotic diseaseYersiniosis is an important zoonotic disease in Norway, with the majority of cases acquired within Norway.Pigs are considered to be a major reservoir, and pork products are considered to be an important sourcefor pathogenic Y. enterocolitica, although uncertainties still remain regarding the epidemiology.

Additional information

A. Yersinosis in humans

126Norway - 2010


Patients whose work represents a risk for spread of the disease, e.g., in food production and health care,are advised to stay away from such work while as long as they have symptoms. It is recommended thatfor these patients two consecutive faecal samples examined after the symptoms have disappeared shouldbe negative before returning to work.

127Norway - 2010


2.7.3 Yersinia in animals


Animals at farmThere are no official monitoring programmes for Y. enterocolitica in live animals.

Animals at slaughter (herd based approach)There are no official monitoring programmes for Y. enterocolitica in animals at slaughter.


There are no official monitoring programmes for Y. enterocolitica in animals.

Recent actions taken to control the zoonosesDuring the mid 1990s, there was a gradual introduction of improved slaughter routines that aid inpreventing pig carcasses from being contaminated with Yersinia enterocolitica. A significant reduction inthe incidence of reported yersiniosis in humans was noted subsequent to this action.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesNone.

A. Yersinia enterocolitica in pigs

128Norway - 2010

129

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Yersinia in animals

NVI Animal unknown 1 1Hares - wild



Yersinia

Y.enterocolitica

Y.pseudotuberc

ulosis

Yersinia spp.,unspecified

Y.enterocolitica

- O:3

Y.enterocolitica

- O:9

Y.enterocolitica

- Y.enterocolitica,unspecified

Standard bacteriological investigation for clinical samples.

Footnote:


2.8 TRICHINELLOSIS


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryTrichinellosis has been found sporadically in farmed food producing animals and was last detected in twopig herds in 1994. This was the first report of trichinellosis in pigs since 1981.

Trichinellosis occurs endemically among wild red foxes in mainland Norway and among wild arctic foxesand polar bears in the archipelago of Svalbard. In a survey in red foxes killed during the licenced huntingseason in 1994-1995 and 2002-2005, 4.8% of 393 examined animals were positive for Trichinella larvae.T. spiralis and T. pseudospiralis were not found in these studies. T. nativa is the most commonly foundspecies in Norwegian foxes. Trichinellosis has also been diagnosed in farmed foxes.

Human trichinellosis acquired in Norway has not been reported since 1980. The two last reported cases ofhuman trichinellosis, in 1996, were both imported.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionTrichinellosis was last detected in food producing animals in 1994, in two pig herds.

Trichinellosis occurs endemically among wildlife.


As Norwegian food producing animals very rarely are infected with Trichinella, and all slaughtered pigsand horses are analysed for the parasite, the probability of contracting trichinellosis from food producinganimals of Norwegian origin is close to zero.

A. Trichinellosis general evaluation

130Norway - 2010


2.8.2 Trichinellosis in humans



Diagnostic/analytical methods usedMuscle biopsy and histopathology (demonstration of Trichinella larvae in tissue) and serology.


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryHuman trichinellosis acquired in Norway is very rare, the last case being reported in 1980. The last twocases of imported trichinellosis were reported in 1996, in immigrants from ex-Yugoslavia.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, no cases of human trichinellosis were reported.

Relevance as zoonotic diseaseThe risk of acquiring trichinellosis from domestic sources is considered very low because trichinellosisonly has been detected twice in food producing animals since 1981, extensive surveillance programmesare in place, and the production is intensive and takes place under controlled conditions.

Additional informationIf a human case should be diagnosed, epidemiological investigations will be initiated in order to identifythe source and prevent further cases.

A. Trichinellosis in humans

131Norway - 2010


2.8.3 Trichinella in animals


All horses were controlled for Trichinella at slaughter in accordance with Council Directive 77/96/EEC untilMarch 2010 and according to Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 since 1st March 2010.

Frequency of the samplingEvery slaughtered animal is sampled.

Type of specimen takenTongue or masseter muscle.

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Methods used are in accordance with Council Directive 77/96/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005since 1st March 2010. For analyses, 5 g per animal is included in a pooled sample of maximum 100 g.

Case definitionAn animal with a positive test result in the official examination.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedArtificial digestion method of pooled samples.

Results of the investigation including the origin of the positive animalsIn 2010, no cases of trichinellosis were reported among slaughtered horses.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesAll horse carcasses that are included in a positive pooled sample will be retested individually (samplesize5 and 50 grams respectively). In accordance with Regulation No 732 of 27 June 2002 on measuresagainst contagious animal diseases measures, such as movement restrictions and investigations into thesource of the disease and any spread, are imposed on holdings with positive findings of Trichinella.Detection of Trichinella must be reported immediately.

Notification system in placeTrichinellosis has been a notifiable List B disease since 1965.


There have not been any findings of Trichinella in horses or horse meat. The risk of obtaining trichinellosisfrom Norwegian horse meat is negligible.

A. Trichinella in horses

132Norway - 2010



GeneralAll pigs must be controlled for Trichinella at slaughter according to Council Directive 77/96/EEC (in forceuntil 1st March) and Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 (as from 1st March 2010).

Frequency of the samplingGeneral

Every slaughtered animal is sampled.

Type of specimen takenGeneral

Diaphragm muscle.

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)General

Methods used are in accordance to Council Directive 77/96/EEC (still in force until 1st March 2010) andCommission regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down specific rules on officialcontrols for Trichinella in meat. Up to 100 samples, each of 1 gram, can be analysed as a pooled samplewhen using a digestion method. Occasionally, the trichinoscopic method is used instead of a digestionmethod.

Case definitionGeneral

An animal with a positive test result in the official examination.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedGeneral

Artificial digestion method of pooled samples. Occasionally a compression (trichinoscopic) method isused.

Preventive measures in placeIt is prohibited to feed pigs with swills. Most pig herds have implemented programs for combating ofrodents (rats and mice).


All pigs must be controlled for Trichinella at slaughter according to Council Directive 77/96/EEC until 1stMarch 2010 and Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 thereafter.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesMeasures are imposed on holdings with positive findings of Trichinella in accordance with Regulationsconcerning measures against contagious animal diseases of 27.06.2002 no 732 (movement restrictions,epidemiological investigation into the source and possible spread of the disease). Detection of Trichinellamust be reported immediately. Farms delivering positive carcasses will be identified. Animals from suchfarms will be given special attention at slaughter the following six months. The sample size for thedigestion method will be increased to 2 grams.

Notification system in place

B. Trichinella in pigs

133Norway - 2010


Trichinellosis has been a notifiable disease (List B) since 1965.

Results of the investigation including description of the positive cases and the verification ofthe Trichinella species

In 2010, no cases of trichinellosis among slaughtered pigs were reported.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionTrichinellosis was last detected in two pig herds in 1994.


There have not been any findings of Trichinella in pigs or pig meat for many years. The risk of obtainingtrichinellosis from Norwegian pig meat is negligible.

134Norway - 2010



All wild boars and bears must be controlled for Trichinella at slaughter in accordance with CouncilDirective 77/96/EEC and (in force at the beginning of 2010) and Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 since 1stMarch 2010. This control is compulsory. Wild and farmed foxes and other species of wildlife areoccasionally sampled.

Frequency of the samplingDepending on the situation and animal species.

Type of specimen takenDiaphragm, tongue, masseter or occasionally other muscles.

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Depending on the situation and animal species.

Case definitionAn animal with a positive test result.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedDigestion methods or trichiniscopic (compression) method.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesIf trichinellosis is diagnosed in a farmed fox, the animal holding will get official restrictions in accordancewith Regulations concerning measures against contagious diseases of 27.06.2002 no 732 (not allowed tosell animals and epidemiological investigation of the source and any spread of the infection).

Notification system in placeTrichinellosis has been a notifiable disease since 1965.

Results of the investigation including the origin of the positive animalsIn 2009, one lynx (Lynx lynx) was investigated and found negative for Trichinella.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionTrichinellosis occurs endemically among wildlife.

C. Trichinella spp., unspecified in animal - Wild animals

135Norway - 2010

136

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Trichinella in animals

NVI Animal 2 0Foxes

Animal 1565700 0Pigs

Animal 1500 0Solipeds, domestic - horses


Sampling unit Units testedTotal unitspositive forTrichinella

T. spiralisTrichinella

spp.,unspecified


2.9 ECHINOCOCCOSIS


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryE. granulosus used to be relatively common in semi-domesticated reindeer in Nort Norway until the 1950s(approx. 10% prevalence in the 1950s). Today the parasite has virtually been eliminated as a result ofsystematic antihelmintic treatment of herder dogs and a reduction in the feeding of raw offal fromslaughter to the herder dogs. In 2003, one reindeer had pathological findings compatible with E.granulosus infestation. E. granulosus was last reported in cattle in 1987.

E. multilocularis has never been detected in mainland Norway in any animal species. In 1999, a researchproject on echinococcosis in the archipelago of Svalbard detected E. multilocularis cysts in the liver of16% of 172 sibling voles tested. In a follow-up study, faecal samples from polar foxes, dogs, and catswere collected. The parasite was diagnosed in three of six polar foxes, in one of 48 dogs, and in neither ofthe two cats. The methods used were coproantigen ELISA, egg isolation and PCR. The number of volesthat annually tested positive between 2000-2006, varied between 19% and 96%. In mainland Norway inthe period 2002-2005, a total of 314 red foxes were investigated using coproantigen ELISA, egg isolationand PCR, all were negative for E. multilocularis. An ongoing national surveillance program for E.multilocularis was implemented in red foxes in 2006. Since then, 1305 foxes have been examined usingegg isolation and PCR. All of the total 1619 red foxes have tested negative for E. multilocularis.

Human echinococcosis has never been a public health problem in Norway.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe risk of acquiring echinococcosis in Norway is considered very low. The pathological findingcompatible with E. granulosus infestation in a reindeer in 2003 is a reminder that this parasite still may bepresent and that this requires awareness in the reindeer industry, especialy with regard to the importanceof regular treatment of herd dogs with an anti-helmintic drug.

The occurrence of E. multilocularis among animals in the archipelago of Svalbard requires alertnessamong health personnel, especially in this region.


The pathological finding compatible with E. granulosus infestation in a reindeer in 2003 is a reminder thatthis parasite still may be present and that this requires awareness in the reindeer industry.

As E. multilocularis has never been detected in mainland Norway in any animal species, the risk tohumans of contracting E. multilocularis infection in mainland Norway is probably very low. The occurrenceof E. multilocularis among animals in the archipelago of Svalbard requires alertness among healthpersonnel in this region. Inhabitants of Svalbard have been informed about the risk.

A. Echinococcus spp. general evaluation

137Norway - 2010


2.9.2 Echinococcosis in humans

Reporting system in place for the human casesHuman cases are reported to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS),from microbiological laboratories as well as from clinical doctors. The system distinguishes betweendomestic and imported cases. The severity of the disease at the time of reporting is also recorded. Thesurveillance system does not follow individual patients over time to record further disease developmentand final outcome.

Case definitionA clinical compatible case that is laboratory confirmed.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedSerology and histopathology.

Notification system in placeAccording to the Communicable Disease Act, human cases are notifiable to the Norwegian SurveillanceSystem for Communicable Diseases (MSIS) since 1 July 2003.

History of the disease and/or infection in the countryHuman echinococcosis has never been a public health problem in Norway and the incidence isconsidered to be at most very low.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, one case of infection with E. granulosus was reported. The patient was infected abroad.

Relevance as zoonotic diseaseThe risk of acquiring echinococcosis in Norway is considered very low. The pathological findingcompatible with E. granulosus infestation in a reindeer in 2003 is a reminder that this parasite still isaround and that this requires awareness in the reindeer industry, especially as regard the importance ofregular treatment of herd dogs with an antihelmintic drug. As E. multilocularis has never been detected inmainland Norway in any animal species, the risk to humans of contracting echinococcosis caused by E.multilocularis in mainland Norway is close to zero. The presence of E. multilocularis among animals in thearchipelago of Svalbard requires vigilance amongst health personnel in this region. Inhabitants ofSvalbard have been informed about the risk.

A. Echinococcus spp. in humans

138Norway - 2010


2.9.3 Echinococcus in animals


Surveillance in intermediate hosts is achieved through the official meat inspection.

There are no official monitoring programmes for Echinococcus granulosus among the final hosts (dogs).Frequency of the sampling

All possible intermediate hosts subject to meat inspection procedure according to Council Directive64/433/EEC (still in force January and February 20010) and Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 since 1stMarch 2010. An exception to this is wild ruminants in which there is no obligatory control if they are shotfor private consumption.

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Inspection for hydatid cysts at the abattoir.


Diagnostic/analytical methods usedOther: Macroscopic (visual) examinations of organs and parasitology.

Other preventive measures than vaccination in placeDogs and cats imported to Norway, except those imported from Sweden and Finland, must be treated withan anthelmintic drug the last ten days before entering Norway and again one week after arrival. Treatmentwith an anthelmintic drug is also advocated on a general basis, especially for herd dogs in areas withreindeer.


Mandatory official meat control.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesAn animal with cystic echinococcosis will be condemned. Epidemiological data will be collected in order tofind the source of infection and measures will be introduced to prevent further spread.

Notification system in placeEchinococcosis has been a notifiable List B disease according to the Animal Diseases Act since 1985.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, all slaughtered animals subjected to official meat control were negative for E. granulosus. Nocases of infection with E. granulosus were diagnosed in carnivores.

Additional informationMethods in use when examining final hosts: Faecal material: Egg isolation (flotation) and PCR.

A. E. granulosus in animal

139Norway - 2010




In 2006 a National surveillance programme regarding E. multilocularis in red foxes was started. Theprogram also included the examination of samples from about 300 hunted foxes collected forparasitological research purposes in the period 2002-2005. In 2010, no animals were investigated.Animals hunted late 2010 will be investigated in 2011 together with animals hunted in the spring 2011.There are no official monitoring programmes for E. multilocularis in other animals.

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)Foxes: Faecal samples.


Diagnostic/analytical methods usedFaecal samples: Taeniid egg isolation and multiplex PCR techniques.

Other preventive measures than vaccination in placeDogs and cats imported to Norway, except those imported from Sweden and Finland, must be treated withan anti-helmintic drug the last ten days before entering Norway and also one week after arrival. Treatmentwith an anti-helmintic drug is also advocated on a general basis. Due to findings of E. multilocularis in thearchipelago of Svalbard, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority requires that dogs and cats that areintroduced into mainland Norway from Svalbard must be treated with an anti-helmintic drug approved fortreatment of E. multilocularis.

Control program/mechanismsRecent actions taken to control the zoonoses

The findings of E. multilocularis in the archipelago of Svalbard in 1999 resulted in follow-up studies,requirements regarding anti-helmintic treatment of dogs and cats in regard to export, and an informationcampaign directed to the inhabitants of Svalbard.

Notification system in placeEchinococcosis has been a notifiable List B disease according to the Animal Diseases Act since 1985.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, one dog and one racoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) were investigated. Both were negative.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionIn mainland Norway, E. multilocularis has never been detected in any animal species. The main host of E.multilocularis, the red fox, has been investigated by examining a total of 1633 foxes killed during huntingfrom 2002-2009. All foxes have been negative. Thus, there are so far no indications that this parasite hasestablished in Norway. In 1999, in a research project on echinococcosis in the archipelago of Svalbard, E.multilocularis was detected in 16% of 172 sibling voles tested. In a follow-up study, the parasite wasdiagnosed in samples from polar foxes and one dog. Of the voles tested in 2000-2006, between 19% and96% were positive each year.

B. E. multilocularis in animal

141Norway - 2010

142

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Echinococcus in animals

Animal 306900 0Cattle (bovine animals)

NVI Animal 1 0Dogs

Animal 24300 0Goats

Animal 1565700 0Pigs

Animal 1228100 0Sheep

NVI Animal 1 0Raccoon dogs - wild


Sampling unit Region Units tested


EchinococcusE. granulosus E.

multilocularisEchinococcus

spp.,unspecified


2.10 TOXOPLASMOSIS


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryIn 1994, the last year human toxoplasmosis was notifiable, 33 cases were reported (incidence rate 0.77per 100 000 inhabitants) of which eight were children less than one year.

Toxoplasma gondii is endemic in animals in Norway with the domestic cat and wild lynx being the finalhosts. Studies indicate that the parasite is relatively common among sheep; 18% of the lambs wereseropositive in a survey conducted during the 1990s, and seropositive lambs were identified on 44% of thefarms included. The parasite is assumed to be less common among Norwegian pigs. In the abovementioned survey, 2% of the slaughtering pigs tested were seropositive. In 2008, a survey using goat seracollected in the period 2002-2008 were tested. A total of 18.5% of the animals were positive.

Also wild ruminants (cervids) can be infected; a survey carried out among 4300 cervids killed duringhunting in 1992-2000, revealed 34% seropositive roe deer, 13% seropositive moose, 8% seropositive reddeer and 1% seropositive reindeer.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionToxoplasma gondii is endemic in Norway with the domestic cat and wild lynx being the final hosts. Studiesindicate that the parasite is relatively common among sheep and goat and less common amongNorwegian pigs. Also wild ruminants (cervids) can be infected. There are no data indicating recentdevelopments in the prevalence of the infection in various species.


A case-control study designed to identify risk factors for maternal toxoplasma infection during pregnancyshowed that the following exposures were associated with an increased risk:Eating raw or undercooked minced meat, eating unwashed raw vegetables or fruits, eating raw orundercooked mutton, eating raw or undercooked pork, cleaning the cat litter box and washing the kitchenknife infrequently after preparing raw meat.

This implies that Norwegian farm animals and food products of Norwegian origin may well be an importantsource of human toxoplasmosis.

A. Toxoplasmosis general evaluation

143Norway - 2010


2.10.2 Toxoplasmosis in humans

Reporting system in place for the human casesHuman cases are not reported to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases(MSIS).


Diagnostic/analytical methods usedSerology (antibody detection) and parasitological examination (identification of parasite in clinicalspecimens).

Notification system in placeSince 1995, human toxoplasmosis has not been a notifiable disease in Norway.

History of the disease and/or infection in the countryIn different epidemiological surveys conducted in Norway, 7-27% of pregnant women tested have beenseropositive. The percentages have been age-dependent, with the proportion of seropositive individualsincreasing with age, and have also varied with region and ethnicity.

It is estimated that approximately 90% of fertile women are susceptible to the disease and thatapproximately two out of 1000 susceptible pregnant women are infected during pregnancy.

In 1994, the last year human toxoplasmosis was notifiable, 33 cases were reported (incidence rate 0.77per 100 000 inhabitants) of which eight were children less than one year.

Results of the investigationThe disease is not notifiable.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionToxoplasma gondii is endemic in Norway although the parasite is considered to be somewhat lessprevalent as compared to countries more south in Europe. The public health importance of toxoplasmosisis its potential of causing severe disease in infants who are born to women infected during pregnancy, andits potential of causing severe disease in immunocompromised individuals, such as people with AIDS.Seroprevalence surveys among pregnant women indicate that infection with Toxoplasma is common inNorway. Pregnant women are advised how to avoid infection during pregnancy.

Relevance as zoonotic diseaseA case-control study designed to identify risk factors for maternal toxoplasma infection during pregnancyshowed that the following exposures were associated with an increased risk:Eating raw or undercooked minced meat, eating unwashed raw vegetables or fruits, eating raw orundercooked mutton, eating raw or undercooked pork, cleaning the cat litter box and washing the kitchenknife infrequently after preparing raw meat. This implies that Norwegian farm animals and food products ofNorwegian origin may well be an important source of Toxoplasma for spread to humans.

A. Toxoplasmosis in humans

144Norway - 2010


2.10.3 Toxoplasma in animals


Sampling of animals is performed in case of clinical suspicion and in connection to import/export. Surveysare occasionally performed.

Frequency of the samplingIn cases of clinical suspicion or specific surveys.


Diagnostic/analytical methods usedSerology (direct agglutination test) or pathology.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesNormally none.

Notification system in placeToxoplasmosis in animals has been a List C disease according to the Animal Diseases Act since 1965.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, several animal species were investigated for Toxoplasma at the Norwegian Veterinary Institute.A total of 23 out of 49 investigated sheep were positive. For other details - see table.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionToxoplasma gondii is endemic in Norway. There are no data indicating recent developments in theprevalence of the infection in various species.


A risk for humans of contracting toxoplasmosis in Norway does exist. However, the relevance of clinicaltoxoplasmosis is most important in immunosuppressed persons and in pregnant women.

A. T. gondii in animal

145Norway - 2010

146

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Toxoplasma in animals

NVI Animal 3 1 1Cats

NVI Animal 1 0Dogs

NVI Animal 1 1 1Goats

NVI Animal 3 0Pigs

NVI Animal 49 23 23Sheep



ToxoplasmaT. gondii

Clinical investigations

Footnote:


2.11 RABIES


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryRabies in animals has not been recorded in mainland Norway. An epidemic occurred in the arctic foxpopulation in the archipelago of Svalbard in 1980, with diagnosed cases also in reindeer and one seal.Since then, sporadic cases have been diagnosed in arctic foxes, the last case in 1999. During the period1980 – 2009, 25 animal cases were diagnosed with this disease. However, transmission of rabies tohumans has never been recorded in the archipelago of Svalbard.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionThe favourable situation in mainland Norway regarding rabies is stable. However, there are concernsabout the risk of introducing rabies through illegally imported dogs.


Rabies has sporadically been diagnosed in wild animals in the archipelago of Svalbard, the lastoccurrence was in 1999. Although no transmission of rabies to humans has been recorded in Svalbard,people being in contact with wild animals in Svalbard should be aware of the risk and vaccination isreccomended. In mainland Norway, the possible introduction of rabies through illegally imported animals isa concern.

A. Rabies general evaluation

147Norway - 2010


2.11.2 Rabies in humans


Cases are also reported immediately to the Municipal Medical Officer. If a domestic animal source issuspected, the Municipal Medical Officer also informs the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. Investigationswill be initiated in order to identify the source and prevent further cases.

Case definitionA clinical case that is laboratory confirmed.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedDetection of viral antigens by an immunofluorescence test in neurological tissue (usually brain) inconnection to post-mortem examination, virus isolation in cell culture, or identification of an antibody titregreater than the threshold value in serum or cerebro-spinal fluid from an unvaccinated person.


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryHuman rabies was last described in Norway in 1815.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, no human cases were reported.

Relevance as zoonotic diseaseAs mainland Norway has been free from rabies for almost two centuries and stringent regulation regardingimport of animals are in place, the risk of contracting rabies in mainland Norway is close to zero. Rabieshas sporadically been diagnosed in wild animals in the archipelago of Svalbard, the last time in a foxfound dead in 1999. Although no transmission of rabies to humans has been recorded in Svalbard, peoplebeing in contact with wild animals in Svalbard should be aware of the risk.

Additional informationRabies vaccine containing inactivated virus is available for the following indications: Pre-exposureprophylaxis to; 1) individuals with prolonged travels to countries with high incidence of rabies; 2)individuals who will work with animals in endemic areas; 3) persons who are at frequent risk of bites frombats; 4) laboratory personnel involved in rabies diagnostics. Post-exposure prophylaxis to individualspresumably exposed to rabies virus abroad or in the archipelago of Svalbard, or who have been bitten bybats. The post-exposure prophylaxis includes specific antiserum in addition to the vaccine

A. Rabies in humans

148Norway - 2010


2.11.3 Lyssavirus (rabies) in animals


There are no active surveillance programmes regarding rabies. However, being a notifiable disease,clinical suspicion of rabies must be reported immediately.

Frequency of the samplingOn clinical suspicion.

Type of specimen takenBrain

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)The brain is removed at autopsy, and samples are taken according the procedures described in the OIEmanual.

Case definitionA case that is laboratory confirmed.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedThe Fluorescent antibody test (FAT) is the OIE prescribed test for rabiesvirus antigen and is performedaccording to the OIE Terrestrial Manual 2010. In addition, molecular methods (real time RT-PCR, RT-PCRand gene sequencing) are used.

Vaccination policyVaccines containing inactivated rabies virus antigen are available for dog, cat and ferret. Vaccination isrequired for international transport of these animal species in compliance with national regulations. Fordogs living in Svalbard vaccination is a mandatory requirement. Otherwise, vaccination against rabies isnot done on a routine basis in mainland Norway.

Other preventive measures than vaccination in placeInfected animals will be destroyed and measures taken to prevent further cases.


Dogs, cats and ferrets entering Norway from countries not considered rabies free (include all thirdcountries not listed in the annex "Listed third countries according to Regulation (EC) No 988/2003"), aresubject to four months of quarantine in an officially approved station, followed by a two months period inhome quarantine. However, dogs, cats and ferrets from EEA countries not considered rabies free arepermitted into Norway without quarantine, provided they have been vaccinated against rabies and havebeen proven antibody positive according to a given protocol.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesInfected animals will be destroyed and measures taken to prevent further cases.

Notification system in placeRabies has been a notifiable List A disease according to the Animal Diseases Act since 1965. Rabies isdealt with in Council Directive 92/65/EEC, which is implemented in Regulations on animal health

A. Rabies in dogs

149Norway - 2010


conditions regarding movements, import and export of certain animals [FOR 2004-07-01 No 1105 andFOR 2004-02-20 No 464].

Results of the investigationIn 2010 no cases were reported. Two dogs were investigated and found negative.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionMainland Norway is recognized as rabies free. However, there are concerns regarding a possible increasein the number of illegally imported dogs. Rabies has sporadically been diagnosed in wild animals in thearchipelago of Svalbard, the last time in a fox found dead in 1999. Although no transmission of rabies todogs has been recorded in Svalbard, owners must respect and follow up the mandatory vaccinationprogramme.

150Norway - 2010



There are no active surveillance programmes regarding rabies. However, the disease must be reportedimmediately on clinical suspicion.

Frequency of the samplingOn clinical suspicion. In Svalbard, dead foxes and other animals should be secured for laboratoryexamination.

Type of specimen takenBrain, in bats also oral swabs.

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)The brain is removed at autopsy, and samples are taken according to the procedures described in the OIEmanual.

Case definitionA case that is laboratory confirmed.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedThe Fluorescent antibody test (FAT) is the OIE prescribed test for rabiesvirus antigen and is performedaccording to the OIE terrestrial Manual 2010. In addition, molecular methods (real time RT_PCR, RT-PCRand gene sequencing) are used.

Measures in case of the positive findings or single casesInfected animals will be destroyed and measures taken to prevent further cases.

Notification system in placeRabies has been a notifiable List A disease according to the Animal Diseases Act since 1965. Rabies isdealt with in Council Directive 92/65/EEC, which is implemented in Regulations on animal healthconditions regarding movements, import and export of certain animals [FOR 2004-07-01 No 1105 andFOR 2004-02-20 No 464].

Results of the investigationIn 2010, nine wild animals were tested and all were found negative. The majority of animals came from theSvalbard area (seven arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus) and one polar bear (Ursus maritimus)). In addition onered fox (Vulpes vulpes) came from mainland Norway.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionMainland Norway is considered rabies-free. Rabies has sporadically been diagnosed in wild animals in thearchipelago of Svalbard, the last time in a fox found dead in 1999. Although no transmission of rabies toother animal species has been recorded in Svalbard, people in Svalbard should be aware of the risk.

B. Rabies virus in animal - Wildlife

151Norway - 2010

152

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Rabies in animals

Comments:1) Seven arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus) from the Svalbard area and one red fox (Vulpes vulpes) from mainland Norway2) From the Svalbard area

NVI Animal 2 0Dogs

NVI Animal 8 0Foxes - wild1)

NVI Animal 1 0Polar bears - wild2)


Sampling unit Region Units tested

Total unitspositive forLyssavirus

(rabies)

Lyssavirus,unspecified

Classicalrabies virus(genotype 1)

European BatLyssavirus -unspecified


2.12 STAPHYLOCOCCUS INFECTION


2.13 Q-FEVER


History of the disease and/or infection in the countryQ-fever has not been diagnosed in animals in Norway. In a survey in 2008, bulk milk samples from 460dairy herds and 550 blood samples from 55 suckling cattle herds were sampled in five cattle densecounties (Rogaland, Trøndelag, Hedmark, Oppland and Østfold). In surveys performed in 2009, samplesfrom 349 goat herds (mainly bulk milk samples from 2005-2009), samples from 121 sheep herds and 45cattle herds were analysed for Q-fever. All samples were negative.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionC. burnetii has never been detected in animals in Norway.

A. Coxiella burnetii (Q-fever) general evaluation

153Norway - 2010


2.13.2 Coxiella (Q-fever) in animals


Surveys are performed occasionally.

Case definitionSample positive for antibodies against C. burnetii.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedDetection of antibodies to C. burnetii in milk or serum by ELISA.

Results of the investigationIn 2010, a total of 3420 cattle from 3378 herds (mainly bulk milk samples), 49 sheep (from one herd), 15swine (from a breeding company – export control) and 102 alpacca (from 5 imported herds) were testedfor Q-fever. All samples were negative.

National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionC. burnetii has never been detected in animals in Norway.

A. C. burnetii in Animals

154Norway - 2010

155

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) in animals

Comments:1) Clinical investigations - from one herd.2) All 49 animals from one herd - tested in relation to import.3) The animals came from 5 herds. All were tested in relation to import.4) The animals came from 17 herds.5) All animals from one breeding company6) All animals came from a breeding company and were tested in relation to export.

NVI Animal 5 0Cattle (bovine animals)1)

NVI Animal 49 0Sheep2)

NVI Animal 102 0Alpacas - farmed3)

NVI Animal 53 0Cattle (bovine animals) (Blood samples)4)

NVI Animal 4 0Cattle (bovine animals) (In relation to export)5)

NVI Animal 3358 0Cattle (bovine animals) (bulk milk samples)

NVI Animal 15 0Pigs6)



Total unitspositive forCoxiella (Q-

fever)

C. burnetii

All samples (except from swine) were investigated with ELISA. the samples from swine were investigated by complement fixation test.

Footnote:

156

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

2.14 TULARAEMIA


2.14.2 Francisella in animals

Table Francisella in Animals

NVI Animal 18 10 10Hares - wild - Clinical investigations



Total unitspositive forFrancisella

F. tularensis


3. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC INDICATORS OF ANTIMICROBIALRESISTANCE

157Norway - 2010


3.1 ESCHERICHIA COLI, NON-PATHOGENIC


National evaluation of the recent situation, the trends and sources of infectionEarlier surveys as well as data from the monitoring programme NORM-VET indicate a low to moderateprevalence of resistance in indicator E. coli from Norwegian food producing animals and food. Thoseresistances that are most commonly encountered are to antimicrobials that have been or still are typicallyused therapeutically such as streptomycin, sulphonamides, tetracycline and ampicillin. Fluoroquinoloneresistance is rarely detected, which is a reflection of a very low use of such antimicrobials in foodproducing animals in Norway.

A. Escherichia coli general evaluation

158Norway - 2010


3.1.2 Antimicrobial resistance in Escherichia coli, non-pathogenic


The sampling of animals for isolation of indicator E. coli to be included in resistance monitoring is a part ofthe Norwegian monitoring programme for antimicrobial resistance in feed, food and animals, NORM-VET.The sampling is spread throughout the year and each year one or several animal species are included. In2010, cattle and wild red fox were monitored.

Type of specimen takenFaecal material.

Methods of sampling (description of sampling techniques)The samples were taken as part of other surveillance programmes.

Procedures for the selection of isolates for antimicrobial testingOnly one isolate from each herd (cattle) or animal (fox) was included.

Methods used for collecting dataAll samples were sent to the Norwegian Veterinary Institute in Oslo for identification and for antimicrobialsusceptibility testing.

Laboratory methodology used for identification of the microbial isolatesA sample was plated directly onto the surface of lactose-saccarose-bromthymol blue agar without brothenrichment. After incubation of the agar plates at 37 C for 24 h, a typical colony was plated onto bloodagar (Heart infusion agar (Difco) containing 5% bovine blood) and incubated at 37 C for 18-24 h. Colonieswere identified as E. coli by typical appearance, lactose and/or saccarose fermentation and a positiveindole reaction.


The VetMIC microdilution method (Dept. of Antibiotics, National Veterinary Institute, Sweden) was usedfor the susceptibility testing of all isolates. The antimicrobials included are listed in the tables.

Cut-off values used in testingFor interpretation of results epidemiological cut-off values recommended by EFSA were applied. When nocut-off value was reccomended, a cut-off value was defined on basis of the actual MIC distributionsobtained in the NORM-VET programme.


The sampling of animals for isolation of indicator E. coli to be included in resistance monitoring is a part ofthe Norwegian monitoring programme for antimicrobial resistance in feed, food and animals, NORM-VET.

A. Antimicrobial resistance of E.coli in animal - all animals - monitoring programme (NORM-VET)

159Norway - 2010


161

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of E. coli in Cattle (bovine animals)

209 0Amphenicols - Chloramphenicol

209 0Amphenicols - Florfenicol


209 0Trimethoprim

209 7Sulphonamides - Sulfonamide



209 4Penicillins - Ampicillin


209 190Fully sensitive

209 10Resistant to 1 antimicrobial




E.coli, non-pathogenic,unspecified

yes

209

Antimicrobials:



Escherichia coli, non-pathogenic

N n

162

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of E.coli, non-pathogenic, unspecified in Cattle (bovine animals) - Monitoring - quantitative data[Dilution method]

16 209 0 18 126 65Amphenicols - Chloramphenicol

8 209 4 169 36 1 2 1Tetracyclines - Tetracycline


2 209 0 31 103 74 1Trimethoprim

16 209 19 7 129 54 11 7 1Aminoglycosides - Streptomycin

2 209 0 2 140 67Aminoglycosides - Gentamicin

8 209 4 30 154 18 3 4Penicillins - Ampicillin

0.25 209 1 1 13 164 30 1Cephalosporins - Cefotaxim

256 209 7 102 85 15 7Sulphonamides

Cattle (bovine animals) - Monitoring

yes

209

Antimicrobials:






163

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of E.coli, non-pathogenic, unspecified in Foxes - wild - Monitoring - quantitative data [Dilution method]

16 55 0 4 33 18Amphenicols - Chloramphenicol

8 55 1 35 18 1 1Tetracyclines - Tetracycline


2 55 1 1 38 14 1 1Trimethoprim

16 55 2 3 37 12 1 1 1Aminoglycosides - Streptomycin

2 55 0 1 3 38 13Aminoglycosides - Gentamicin

8 55 1 8 40 4 2 1Penicillins - Ampicillin

0.25 55 0 1 43 11Cephalosporins - Cefotaxim

256 55 3 30 21 1 3Sulphonamides

Foxes - wild - Monitoring

yes

55

Antimicrobials:






164

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Escherichia coli, non-pathogenic in Animals


NCCLS/CLSI







16Streptomycin

2

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin





Test Method Used

Broth dilution

165

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Escherichia coli, non-pathogenic in Feed








16Streptomycin

2

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin





Test Method Used

166

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Escherichia coli, non-pathogenic in Food








16Streptomycin

2

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin





Test Method Used

167

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

3.2 ENTEROCOCCUS, NON-PATHOGENIC


3.2.2 Antimicrobial resistance in Enterococcus, non-pathogenic isolates

Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance of E. faecalis in Animals


512Streptomycin

32

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin



4Glycopeptides (Cyclicpeptides, Polypeptides) Vancomycin


32Streptogramins Quinupristin/Dalfopristin




Test Method Used

168

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance of E. faecalis in Animals

4Oxazolidines Linezolid



169

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance of E. faecalis in Feed


512Streptomycin

32

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin










Test Method Used

170

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance of E. faecalis in Food


512Streptomycin

32

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin










Test Method Used

171

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance of E. faecium in Animals


128Streptomycin

32

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin










Test Method Used

172

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance of E. faecium in Feed


128Streptomycin

32

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin










Test Method Used

173

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Cut-off values for antibiotic resistance of E. faecium in Food


128Streptomycin

32

Aminoglycosides

Gentamicin










Test Method Used


4. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC MICROBIOLOGICAL AGENTS

174Norway - 2010


4.1 ENTEROBACTER SAKAZAKII


4.2 HISTAMINE


4.2.2 Histamine in foodstuffs


Regular testing of selected species is required as an internal part of food business operators qualityassurance system.

Surveys are performed occasionally.Definition of positive finding

Histamine values above 100 mg/kg.

Diagnostic/analytical methods usedReverse phase HPLC/UV

A. Histamine in foodstuffs

175Norway - 2010

176

Norw


Norw

ay - 2010

Table Histamine in food

Comments:1) All samples <5.5 mg/kg

NIFES Single 5 g 25 0 25Fish - Fishery products from fish species associatedwith a high amount of histidine - not enzymematurated

1)



Total units innon-

conformity

<= 100 mg/kg>100 - <= 200mg/kg

>200 - <= 400mg/kg > 400 mg/kg

177

4.3 STAPHYLOCOCCAL ENTEROTOXINS



5. FOODBORNE

Foodborne outbreaks are incidences of two or more human cases of the same disease orinfection where the cases are linked or are probably linked to the same food source. Situation, inwhich the observed human cases exceed the expected number of cases and where a same foodsource is suspected, is also indicative of a foodborne outbreak.

178Norway - 2010


System in place for identification, epidemological investigations and reporting of foodborneoutbreaks

Health personnel are required to report suspected foodborne outbreaks to the Municipal Health Officer,who is required to report to the County Governor (Fylkesmannen) and to the Norwegian Institute of PublicHealth. Suspected outbreaks are reported immediately to the Municipal Medical Officer who notifies theNorwegian Institute of Public Health the same day. If a domestic food or animal source is suspected, theMunicipal Medical Officer also informs the local Food Safety Authority.

The Norwegian Food Safety Authority has voluntary reporting where the District Offices report foodborneoutbreaks.

Norway has since 2005 a web-based reporting system called Vesuv where all outbreaks in humans are tobe reported and stored in a database at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Vesuv came in a newversion i 2010.

If an indigenous outbreak is suspected, epidemiological investigations will be initiated in order to identifythe source and prevent further cases. For imported cases, the country of acquisition will be recorded. Ifinformation through international networks indicates that a case belongs to an outbreak, epidemiologicalinvestigations will be initiated.

Description of the types of outbreaks covered by the reporting:All suspected foodborne outbreaks are notifiable. The definition of a foodborne outbreak is two or morehuman cases with the same infection where the cases are linked or are probably linked to the same foodsource, or when observed number of human cases exceeds the expected number of cases during thesame time period and place, and food is a likely vehicle.

National evaluation of the reported outbreaks in the country:Trends in numbers of outbreaks and numbers of human cases involved

The number of reported foodborne outbreaks has increased in Norway since the web-based reportingsystem was established in 2005 (42 in 2005, 65 in 2006 and 80 in 2007). We believe that this increasingtrend is due to a higher reporting frequency rather than a real higher number of outbreaks. The number ofreported outbreaks decreased again in 2008 (64) and 2009 (47) and was stable in 2010 (53).

Relevance of the different causative agents, food categories and the agent/food categorycombinations

Traditionally, the most common cause of foodborne outbreaks in Norway has been bacterial intoxication(Clostridium perfringens, Bacillus cereus and Staphylococcus aureus). Recently, foodborne outbreaks ofnorovirus caused by infected foodhandlers and imported food items have become more common.Reported domestic outbreaks of salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis have been relatively rare.

Relevance of the different type of places of food production and preparation in outbreaksTraditionally, outbreaks have mainly been associated with inadequate handling and temperature abuse,causing food intoxication. In addition, untreated water has caused several outbreaks.

Evaluation of the severity and clinical picture of the human casesIn 2010, one severe outbreak was reported. No deaths were related to foodborne outbreaks.

A. Foodborne outbreaks

179Norway - 2010


Descriptions of single outbreaks of special interestWe registered one severe outbreak caused by sorbitol fermenting E. coli O157 including three childrenand all of them developed haemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). The source of the outbreak was not found.

180Norway - 2010


1 10 3 0 0 1Salmonella - S.Typhimurium

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Salmonella - S.Enteritidis

2 15 2 0 0 2Salmonella - Otherserovars

5 18 0 0 0 5Campylobacter

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Listeria - Listeriamonocytogenes

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Listeria - OtherListeria

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Yersinia

1 3 3 0 0 1Escherichia coli,pathogenic -

2 5 0 0 0 2Bacillus - B. cereus

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Bacillus - OtherBacillus

1 3 0 0 0 1Staphylococcalenterotoxins

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Clostridium - Cl.botulinum

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Clostridium - Cl.perfringens

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Clostridium - OtherClostridia

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Other Bacterial agents- Brucella

Num

ber o

f out

brea

ks

Hum

an c

ases

Hos

pita

lized

Dea

ths

Stro

ng e

vide

nce

Num

ber o

fO

utbr

eaks

Tota

l num

ber o

f out

brea

ks

Table Foodborne Outbreaks: summarised data

181Norway - 2010


0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Other Bacterial agents- Shigella

1 3 0 0 0 1Other Bacterial agents- Other Bacterial

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Parasites - Trichinella

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Parasites - Giardia

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Parasites -Cryptosporidium

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Parasites - Anisakis

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Parasites - OtherParasites

20 346 0 0 4 24Viruses - Norovirus

1 5 0 0 0 1Viruses - Hepatitisviruses

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Viruses - OtherViruses

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Other agents -Histamine

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Other agents - Marinebiotoxins

15 139 0 0 0 15Other agents - OtherAgents

0 unknown unknown unknown 0 0Unknown agent

Num

ber o

f out

brea

ks

Hum

an c

ases

Hos

pita

lized

Dea

ths

Stro

ng e

vide

nce

Num

ber o

fO

utbr

eaks

Tota

l num

ber o

f out

brea

ks

182Norway - 2010


Calicivirus - norovirus (Norwalk-like virus)

FBO Code

1Number of outbreaks

157Number of human cases

0Number of hospitalisations

0Number of deaths

Vegetables and juices and other products thereofFood vehicle

Lollo lettuceMore food vehicleinformation

Detection of causative agent in food vehicle or its component - Detection ofindistinguishable causative agent in humansNature of evidence

GeneralOutbreak type

UnknownSetting

Farm (primary production)Place of origin of problem

Intra EU tradeOrigin of food vehicle

Unprocessed contaminated ingredientContributory factorsMixed Outbreaks (OtherAgent)

Imported from FranceAdditional information

Value

Table Foodborne Outbreaks: detailed data for VirusesPlease use CTRL for multiple selection fields

183Norway - 2010



FBO Code




0Number of deaths

Vegetables and juices and other products thereofFood vehicle

Mixed saladMore food vehicleinformation



School, kindergartenSetting

School, kindergartenPlace of origin of problem

UnknownOrigin of food vehicle

Infected food handlerContributory factorsMixed Outbreaks (OtherAgent)Additional information

Value

184Norway - 2010



FBO Code




0Number of deaths

Crustaceans, shellfish, molluscs and products thereofFood vehicle

Raw oysterMore food vehicleinformation



Restaurant, Cafe, Pub, Bar, HotelSetting





Value

185Norway - 2010



FBO Code




0Number of deaths

Crustaceans, shellfish, molluscs and products thereofFood vehicle

Raw OysterMore food vehicleinformation



Restaurant, Cafe, Pub, Bar, HotelSetting





Value

186Norway - 2010

Documents

NORWAY - European Food Safety Authority...Norway - 2010 Report on trends and sources of zoonoses 2.8.2 Trichinellosis in humans 131 2.8.3 Trichinella in animals 132 2.9 ECHINOCOCCOSIS